linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] string: Implement KUnit test for str*cmp functions

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: <Zh_ibi_Y6xogktg-@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:53:34 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string: Implement KUnit test for str*cmp functions

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:46:44PM +0100, Ivan Orlov wrote:
> On 4/17/24 15:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Ivan Orlov wrote:

...

> > >   lib/strcmp_kunit.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > Why is not part of the existing string_kunit.c?
> 
> There are already 2 other KUnit tests in `lib/` covering different groups of
> string functions separately (lib/strscpy_kunit.c, lib/strcat_kunit.c), so
> this patch just follows this pattern. I believe it makes sense: the tests
> are separated to cover one specific group of string functions with a similar
> purpose

We have handful of the string functions, are you going to have a file per
function? Isn't it way too many?

P.S>
Having those does not prove it's a correct approach. I would rather expect
somebody to incorporate those into string_kunit.c.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko