Invasive testing strategy #3121
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Evaluate possible approaches for invasive testing. State some rules. This commit was originally written for Mbed Crypto only. Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Clarify that using a header in library/ rather than include/ for internal functions is a rule, not just a possibility. As suggested by Manuel, state a rule for functions that need to be static for best optimization but that we want to unit-test. Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
When this option is enabled, the product includes additional interfaces that enable additional tests. This option should not be enabled in production, but is included in the "full" build to enable the extra tests. Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Define MBEDTLS_STATIC_TESTABLE to mark code that is only exported for test purposes. Since this is for internal library use only, define it in a header in library/. Since there is no suitable header, create one. Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
4 tasks
mpg
reviewed
Apr 30, 2020
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <[email protected]>
|
Thank you for reading this in detail! I've addressed your comments. |
mpg
approved these changes
May 12, 2020
yanesca
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2020
|
CI is passing, it just did not notify github for some reason. |
@gilles-peskine-arm You mentioned that this might not be the case anymore and we should merge this. Am I remembering well, should we merge this? |
|
@yanesca Since I made this PR, we've had a few internal discussions and everyone has had an opportunity to speak up, both in the 2019 and the 2020 team. So I do want to merge this, and start using |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Documentation only. Explore potential strategies for invasive testing. Formulate some rules and guideline. Succinctly describe some solutions.
This is a proposal submitted for discussion.
I deliberately included solutions with “TODO” in them for things that we should do, but aren't doing yet. This pull request was originally submitted at ARMmbed/mbed-crypto#251; TLS will require further consideration.
I've changed headers to define macros mentioned explicitly in the strategy document so that one can start implementing parts of the strategy based on this PR. But implementing the proposed strategy is out of scope of this PR.