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]

Message-ID: <00f59a2f-6dd5-f972-47b4-28e5c996c2a5@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:59:12 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tim.Bird@...y.com, yzaikin@...gle.com
Cc:     tytso@....edu, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding
 extended timestamps

On 10/17/19 5:54 PM, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----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.
> 

Right. Test author might not think about all the possible ways to
test.

> 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
> 

Thanks for explaining the scenarios.

> 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.

I agree. Even if author thinks of all the different ways (I am convinced
of that), still taking test data at run-time makes the unit test just
more effective.

thanks,
-- Shuah