linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] lib/list-test: add a test for the 'list' doubly linked list

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: <20191011145519.7b7a1d16ecdead9bec212c01@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:55:19 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] lib/list-test: add a test for
 the 'list' doubly linked list

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:37:25 -0700 David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:05 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > <looks at kunit>
> >
> > Given that everything runs at late_initcall time, shouldn't everything
> > be __init, __initdata etc so all the code and data doesn't hang around
> > for ever?
> >
> 
> That's an interesting point. We haven't done this for KUnit tests to
> date, and there is certainly a possibility down the line that we may
> want to be able to run these tests in other circumstances. (There's
> some work being done to allow KUnit and KUnit tests to be built as
> modules here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/8/628 for example.) Maybe
> it'd be worth having macros which wrap __init/__initdata etc as a way
> of futureproofing tests against such a change?
> 
> Either way, I suspect this is something that should probably be
> considered for KUnit as a whole, rather than on a test-by-test basis.

Sure, a new set of macros for this makes sense.  Can be retrofitted any
time.

There might be a way of loading all of list_test.o into a discardable
section at link time instead of sprinkling annotation all over the .c
code.