linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:10:51 +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 v5 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk
 modifier

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:57:32PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes.
> 
> > +static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
> > +{
> > +	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> > +		{ .name = "first", },
> > +		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> > +		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> > +		{ NULL /* Guardian */ },
> 
> Comma is still here :-)

Oops. I ended up removing the comma in a wrong patch which wasn't submitted
to the list. Will fix for v6.

> 
> > +	};
> 
> > +	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]));
> 
> I have another thought about these. The test cases will fail in either of
> adding, inserting or removing items in softnodes array. So, using the above
> "protective" scheme doesn't bring any value except making readability worse.

Agreed, to be addressed in v6.

-- 
Regards,

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