| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CABVgOSkhN-DPYnhuTG1hGU-2aP0MEaKjz+0=Sr_VNKUhpgz79g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:21:11 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
Cc: linux@...encehorizons.net,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
ferreiraenzoa@...il.com, augusto.duraes33@...il.com,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] test_hash.c: split test_int_hash into arch-specific functions
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:26 AM Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br> wrote:
>
> Split the The test_int_hash function to keep its mainloop separate from
> arch-specific chunks, which are only compiled as needed. This aims at
> improving readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
> ---
I like this, but have a note below. It _may_ be worth combining some
of these test refactoring patches with the KUnit port patch:
definitely a matter of taste rather than something I think is
necessary, but I personally think they're related enough they could go
together if you wanted.
Cheers,
-- David
> lib/test_hash.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index 8bcc645a7294..ed75c768c231 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,45 @@ fill_buf(char *buf, size_t len, u32 seed)
> }
> }
>
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> +static bool __init
> +test_int_hash32(u32 *h0, u32 *h1, u32 *h2)
I'm unsure about this name. Having test_int_hash32() test only
__hash_32(), where test_int_hash64() tests hash_64() feels a little
bit inconsistent. Maybe this is somewhere we should have the extra
underscore like in HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32.
I get that because the architecture-specific hash_32() is removed
earlier, there's no need for an extra function to test how that
compares against a generic function, so there's no conflict here, but
it did confuse me briefly.
The other option is, as mentioned in the earlier patch, to keep the
architecture-specific hash_32() (and _maybe_ get rid of __hash_32()
entirely), in which case this name would be perfect for testing that.
> +{
> + hash_or[1][0] |= *h2 = __hash_32_generic(h0);
> +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
> + if (*h1 != *h2) {
> + pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
> + *h0, *h1, *h2);
> + return false;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return true;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> +static bool __init
> +test_int_hash64(unsigned long long h64, u32 *h0, u32 *h1, u32 *h2, u32 const *m, int k)
> +{
> + *h2 = hash_64_generic(*h64, *k);
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
> + if (*h1 != *h2) {
> + pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
> + *h64, *k, *h1, *h2);
> + return false;
> + }
> +#else
> + if (*h2 > *m) {
> + pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> + *h64, *k, *h1, *m);
> + return false;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return true;
> +
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * Test the various integer hash functions. h64 (or its low-order bits)
> * is the integer to hash. hash_or accumulates the OR of the hash values,
> @@ -74,19 +113,17 @@ static bool __init
> test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64)
> {
> int k;
> - u32 h0 = (u32)h64, h1, h2;
> + u32 h0 = (u32)h64, h1;
> +
> +#if defined HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 || defined HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> + u32 h2;
> +#endif
>
> /* Test __hash32 */
> hash_or[0][0] |= h1 = __hash_32(h0);
> #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> - hash_or[1][0] |= h2 = __hash_32_generic(h0);
> -#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
> - if (h1 != h2) {
> - pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
> - h0, h1, h2);
> + if (!test_int_hash32(&h0, &h1, &h2))
> return false;
> - }
> -#endif
> #endif
>
> /* Test k = 1..32 bits */
> @@ -107,24 +144,11 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64)
> return false;
> }
> #ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> - h2 = hash_64_generic(h64, k);
> -#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
> - if (h1 != h2) {
> - pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() "
> - "= %#x", h64, k, h1, h2);
> + if (!test_int_hash64(&h64, &h0, &h1, &h2, &m, &k))
> return false;
> - }
> -#else
> - if (h2 > m) {
> - pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> - h64, k, h1, m);
> - return false;
> - }
> -#endif
> #endif
> }
>
> - (void)h2; /* Suppress unused variable warning */
> return true;
> }
>
> @@ -150,15 +174,15 @@ test_hash_init(void)
> /* Check that hashlen_string gets the length right */
> if (hashlen_len(hashlen) != j-i) {
> pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length"
> - " %u, expected %d",
> - i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
> + " %u, expected %d",
> + i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
These whitespace changes probably aren't necessary.
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> /* Check that the hashes match */
> if (hashlen_hash(hashlen) != h0) {
> pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != "
> - "full_name_hash() = %08x",
> - i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
> + "full_name_hash() = %08x",
> + i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
These whitespace changes probably aren't necessary.
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> @@ -178,14 +202,14 @@ test_hash_init(void)
> }
> if (~hash_or[0][0]) {
> pr_err("OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
> - hash_or[0][0], -1u);
> + hash_or[0][0], -1u);
This whitespace change probably isn't necessary.
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 /* Test is pointless if results match */
> if (~hash_or[1][0]) {
> pr_err("OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
> - hash_or[1][0], -1u);
> + hash_or[1][0], -1u);
You get the idea...
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> #endif
> @@ -197,12 +221,12 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>
> if (hash_or[0][i] != m) {
> pr_err("OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x "
> - "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m);
> + "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> if (hash_or[1][i] != m) {
> pr_err("OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x "
> - "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m);
> + "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
> --
> 2.33.0
>
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4000 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists