linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 17:38:46 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        frowand.list@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, keescook@...gle.com,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, robh@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        tytso@....edu, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        amir73il@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        jdike@...toit.com, joel@....id.au, julia.lawall@...6.fr,
        khilman@...libre.com, knut.omang@...cle.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, pmladek@...e.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        richard@....at, rientjes@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        wfg@...ux.intel.com, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-05-14 15:16:55)
> diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> index 86f65ba2bcf92..a15e6f8c41582 100644
> --- a/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/kunit/test.c
[..]
> +
> +void *kunit_kmalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> +       struct kunit_kmalloc_params params;
> +       struct kunit_resource *res;
> +
> +       params.size = size;
> +       params.gfp = gfp;
> +
> +       res = kunit_alloc_resource(test,
> +                                  kunit_kmalloc_init,
> +                                  kunit_kmalloc_free,
> +                                  &params);
> +
> +       if (res)
> +               return res->allocation;
> +       else
> +               return NULL;

Can be written as

	if (res)
		return ....
	return 

and some static analysis tools prefer this.

> +}
> +
> +void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct kunit_resource *resource, *resource_safe;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&test->lock, flags);

Ah ok, test->lock is protecting everything now? Does it need to be a
spinlock, or can it be a mutex?

> +       list_for_each_entry_safe(resource,
> +                                resource_safe,
> +                                &test->resources,
> +                                node) {
> +               kunit_free_resource(test, resource);
> +       }
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&test->lock, flags);
> +}
> +