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: <CAFd5g46tNs=E5+_H4H9_aSwPJ7XVbCLTUSH6JYmmFK3QxW6Vdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:48:33 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:55 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

I created a bug to track this here:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205217