linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 12/18] kunit: test: add tests for KUnit managed resources

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: <20190813043140.67FF320644@mail.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:31:39 -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, Avinash Kondareddy <akndr41@...il.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 12/18] kunit: test: add tests for KUnit managed resources

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:15)
> +
> +static int kunit_resource_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct kunit_test_resource_context *ctx =
> +                       kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +       if (!ctx)
> +               return -ENOMEM;

Should this use the test assertion logic to make sure that it's not
failing allocations during init? BTW, maybe kunit allocation APIs should
fail the test if they fail to allocate in general. Unless we're unit
testing failure to allocate problems.

> +
> +       test->priv = ctx;
> +
> +       kunit_init_test(&ctx->test, "test_test_context");
> +
> +       return 0;