linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: adjust handling of a few numerical mount options

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: <db2897f9a625e7e9a6797fe32cc9364bde56d605.camel@yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:21:42 +0300
From: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko
	 <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
 Carlos Maiolino
	 <cem@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: adjust handling of a few numerical mount
 options

On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 14:55 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> Yes.  Common code needs to have a rigorous self test suite, because I
> see no point in replacing inadequately tested bespoke parsing code with
> inadequately tested common parsing code.

Nothing to disagree but:

1) My experience clearly shows that it takes a few patch submission
iterations and a bunch of e-mails just to notice that the tests are
mandatory for lib/ stuff. If it is really a requirement, it is worth
to be mentioned somewhere under Documentation/process at least.

2) I've traced memparse() back to 2006 at least, and (if I didn't miss
something) there is no actual tests for it since them. And it's hard to
see a point in testing memvalue() prior to testing its actual workhorse.

Dmitry