[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a81c546-e4c5-dc7c-1853-ec4ae4600102@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:26:54 -0700
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] apparmor: test: Remove some casts which are
no-longer required
On 5/13/21 12:32 PM, David Gow wrote:
> With some of the stricter type checking in KUnit's EXPECT macros
> removed, several casts in policy_unpack_test are no longer required.
>
> Remove the unnecessary casts, making the conditions clearer.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
I have pulled this into the apparmor tree
> ---
> This should be a no-op functionality wise, and while it depends on the
> first couple of patches in this series, it's otherwise independent from
> the others. I think this makes the test more readable, but if you
> particularly dislike it, I'm happy to drop it.
>
> security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> index 533137f45361..03f78a41ef79 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_out_of_bounds(struct kunit *test)
>
> array_size = unpack_array(puf->e, name);
>
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, (u16)0);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos,
> puf->e->start + TEST_NAMED_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET);
> }
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_strdup_out_of_bounds(struct kunit *test)
> size = unpack_strdup(puf->e, &string, TEST_STRING_NAME);
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, string, (char *)NULL);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, string, NULL);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, start);
> }
>
> @@ -391,10 +391,10 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u16_chunk_basic(struct kunit *test)
>
> size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, (void *)chunk,
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk,
> puf->e->start + TEST_U16_OFFSET + 2);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)TEST_U16_DATA);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, (void *)(chunk + TEST_U16_DATA));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, TEST_U16_DATA);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, (chunk + TEST_U16_DATA));
> }
>
> static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u16_chunk_out_of_bounds_1(
> @@ -408,8 +408,8 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u16_chunk_out_of_bounds_1(
>
> size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, (char *)NULL);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->end - 1);
> }
>
> @@ -430,8 +430,8 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u16_chunk_out_of_bounds_2(
>
> size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, (char *)NULL);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->start + TEST_U16_OFFSET);
> }
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists