linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fat: Add KUnit tests for checksums and timestamps

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: <CABVgOSkQRvRSr-c1FKG+GDr5ewV+FJ-unZbtNvQLayoT6FmBtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:50:02 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.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 v2] fat: Add KUnit tests for checksums and timestamps

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:51 PM OGAWA Hirofumi
<hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
>
> David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/fs/fat/misc.c b/fs/fat/misc.c
> > index f1b2a1fc2a6a..445ad3542e74 100644
> > --- a/fs/fat/misc.c
> > +++ b/fs/fat/misc.c
> > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ void fat_time_fat2unix(struct msdos_sb_info *sbi, struct timespec64 *ts,
> >               ts->tv_nsec = 0;
> >       }
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fat_time_fat2unix);
>
> Hm, can this export only if FAT_KUNIT_TEST is builtin or module (maybe
> #if IS_ENABLED(...))? And #if will also be worked as the comment too.
>

That's possible, but I'd prefer to export it unconditionally for two reasons:
1. It'd make it possible to build the fat_test module without having
to rebuild the whole kernel/fat.
2. It'd be consistent with fat_time_unix2fat(), which is exported for
use in vfat/msdos anyway.

Neither of those are dealbreakers, though, so if you'd still prefer
this to be behind an ifdef, I'll change it.

-- David