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

Message-ID: <aXDTtenD9sRp3rUm@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 15:25:09 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
	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 Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 08:21:42AM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> 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.

Feel free to submit an update! :-)

Sorry that I mentioned it one or two versions later than I should have.

> 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.

Yes, the historical code needs test cases. I added a few for get_option*()
for example before touching that code. So you're welcome to start test
cases for memparse(), I will appreciate that!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko