linux-ext4 - RE: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:54:28 +0000
From:   <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     <yzaikin@...gle.com>, <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <tytso@....edu>, <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for
 decoding extended timestamps



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iurii Zaikin
> 
> > You can do all of this and allow users to supply another set of data.
> > It doesn't gave to be one or the other.
> >
> What is the use case for running a unit test on a different data set than
> what it comes with?

I just gave some ideas in another message (our emails crossed),
but one use case is to allow someone besides the test author
to inject additional data points, and to do so without having to re-compile
the code.

They might do this for multiple reasons:
 - to experiment with additional data points
 - to try to diagnose a problem they are seeing
 - to fill gaps they see in existing data points

Whether this makes sense depends on a lot of factors.  I suspect
the timestamp test code is not a good candidate for this, as the code
is simple enough that adding a new test case is pretty trivial.  For some
other types of tests, adding the data via an external file could be easier
than changing the code of the test.
 -- Tim