linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk modifier

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]

Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:09:25 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk
 modifier

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 03:26:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:32:40AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes.
> 
> > +	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> > +		{ .name = "first", },
> > +		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> > +		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> > +		{ NULL /* Guardian */ },
> > +	};
> 
> > +	test(full_name_second, "%pfw",
> > +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> > +	test(full_name, "%pfw",
> > +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> > +	test(full_name, "%pfwf",
> > +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> > +	test(second_name, "%pfwP",
> > +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> > +	test(third_name, "%pfwP",
> > +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> 
> 
> These can be shorted and easier to parse if you use absolute indexes.

The above doesn't end up accessing out-of-bounds memory without compiler
errors or warnings if the array is changed, therefore I'd prefer to keep it
as-is.

But I'll remove the comma from the guardian entry for v5. :-)

-- 
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com