linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix linked-list KUnit test when run multiple times

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: <CAFd5g46Jym_HX+QmX8ffVYfL1KATNjs9U6sR1Qv9SoVLx5GKDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:01:34 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix linked-list KUnit test when run multiple times

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:46 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> A few of the lists used in the linked-list KUnit tests (the
> for_each_entry{,_reverse} tests) are declared 'static', and so are
> not-reinitialised if the test runs multiple times. This was not a
> problem when KUnit tests were run once on startup, but when tests are
> able to be run manually (e.g. from debugfs[1]), this is no longer the
> case.
>
> Making these lists no longer 'static' causes the lists to be
> reinitialised, and the test passes each time it is run. While there may
> be some value in testing that initialising static lists works, the
> for_each_entry_* tests are unlikely to be the right place for it.

Oh good, I am glad we are getting rid of those static variables. (I
thought we already dropped those - whoops.) I think this drops this
last of them, can you confirm David?

Regardless, this patch looks good to me.

> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>

Thanks for taking care of this!