linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 03/18] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream like string builder

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: <CAFd5g452+-6m1eiVK0ccTDkJ2wH8GBwxRDw5owwC8h3NscE1ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:12:54 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 03/18] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream
 like string builder

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:04 AM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 22:02:59)
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:56 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:41:05)
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:59 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > kunit_resource_destroy (respective equivalents to devm_kfree, and
> > > > > > > devres_destroy) and use kunit_kfree here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, or drop the API entirely? Does anything need this functionality?
> > > > >
> > > > > Drop the kunit_resource API? I would strongly prefer not to.
> > > >
> > > > No. I mean this API, string_stream_clear(). Does anything use it?
> > >
> > > Oh, right. No.
> > >
> > > However, now that I added the kunit_resource_destroy, I thought it
> > > might be good to free the string_stream after I use it in each call to
> > > kunit_assert->format(...) in which case I will be using this logic.
> > >
> > > So I think the right thing to do is to expose string_stream_destroy so
> > > kunit_do_assert can clean up when it's done, and then demote
> > > string_stream_clear to static. Sound good?
> >
> > Ok, sure. I don't really see how clearing it explicitly when the
> > assertion prints vs. never allocating it to begin with is really any
> > different. Maybe I've missed something though.
>
> It's for the case that we *do* print something out. Once we are doing
> printing, we don't want the fragments anymore.

Oops, sorry fat fingered: s/doing/done