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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:12:45 +0100
From: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
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 4/17/24 15:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> 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.
> 

Makes sense. Also, probably having all of them in `string_kunit.c` would 
fit better into the KUnit test style guidelines.

I'll merge this strcmp test into `string_kunit.c` in V2 of this patch, 
thank you for the review.

-- 
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov