linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] bitmap: Add bitmap_zero()/bitmap

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: <20180110093405.zhz3smxy264kmghv@yury-thinkpad>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:34:05 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] bitmap: Add bitmap_zero()/bitmap_clear() test
 cases

Hi Andy,

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Explicitly test bitmap_zero() and bitmap_clear() functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  lib/test_bitmap.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index de7ef2996a07..9734af711816 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -105,6 +105,35 @@ __check_eq_u32_array(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
>  #define expect_eq_pbl(...)		__expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_u32_array(...)	__expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  
> +static void __init test_zero_clear(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	/* Known way to set all bits */

Nit: if you start your comments with capital, proceed that way till
the end.

> +	memset(bmap, 0xff, 128);
> +
> +	expect_eq_pbl("0-22", bmap, 23);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("0-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	/* single-word bitmaps */
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 0, 9);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("9-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(bmap, 35);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("64-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	/* cross boundaries operations */
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 79, 19);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("64-78,98-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(bmap, 115);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("128-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> +	/* Zeroing entire area */
> +	bitmap_zero(bmap, 1024);
> +	expect_eq_pbl("", bmap, 1024);
> +}
> +
>  static void __init test_zero_fill_copy(void)
>  {
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap1, 1024);
> @@ -309,6 +338,7 @@ static void noinline __init test_mem_optimisations(void)
>  
>  static int __init test_bitmap_init(void)
>  {
> +	test_zero_clear();
>  	test_zero_fill_copy();
>  	test_bitmap_arr32();
>  	test_bitmap_parselist();

I don't understand what patch #4 is doing in this series. At the first
glance, it may be applied separately.

The rest is looking fine. For 1-3,
Reviewed-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>