linux-kernel - ASSERT_GE definition is backwards

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:05:02 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: ASSERT_GE definition is backwards

ASSERT_GE() is defined as:

/**
 * ASSERT_GE(expected, seen)
 *
 * @expected: expected value
 * @seen: measured value
 *
 * ASSERT_GE(expected, measured): expected >= measured
 */
#define ASSERT_GE(expected, seen) \
__EXPECT(expected, #expected, seen, #seen, >=, 1)

but that means that logically, if you want to write "assert that the
measured PID X is >= the expected value 0", you actually have to use
ASSERT_LE(0, X). That's really awkward. Normally you'd be talking
about how the seen value compares to the expected one, not the other
way around.

At the moment I see tests that are instead written like ASSERT_GE(X,
0), but then that means that the expected and seen values are the
wrong way around.

It might be good if someone could refactor the definitions of
ASSERT_GE and such to swap around which number is the expected and
which is the seen one.