linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] test_hash.c: split test_hash

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]
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:17:09 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
Cc:     geert@...ux-m68k.org, ferreiraenzoa@...il.com,
        augusto.duraes33@...il.com, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
        dlatypov@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, ~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht,
        rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] test_hash.c: split test_hash_init

On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 00:33, 'Isabella Basso' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Split up test_hash_init so that it calls each test more explicitly
> insofar it is possible without rewriting the entire file. This aims at
> improving readability.
>
> Split tests performed on string_or as they don't interfere with those
> performed in hash_or. Also separate pr_info calls about skipped tests as
> they're not part of the tests themselves, but only warn about
> (un)defined arch-specific hash functions.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - As suggested by David Gow:
>   1. Rename arch-specific test functions.
>   2. Remove spare whitespace changes.
> - As suggested by Marco Elver:
>   1. Add struct for carrying test variables.

Did the patches get mixed up? The struct doesn't appear to be introduced here.

> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
> ---
>  lib/test_hash.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index 08fe63776c4f..db9dd18b4e8b 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -153,11 +153,39 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
>
>  #define SIZE 256       /* Run time is cubic in SIZE */
>
> -static int __init
> -test_hash_init(void)
> +static int __init test_string_or(void)
>  {
>         char buf[SIZE+1];
> -       u32 string_or = 0, hash_or[2][33] = { { 0, } };
> +       u32 string_or = 0;
> +       int i, j;
> +
> +       fill_buf(buf, SIZE, 1);
> +
> +       /* Test every possible non-empty substring in the buffer. */
> +       for (j = SIZE; j > 0; --j) {
> +               buf[j] = '\0';
> +
> +               for (i = 0; i <= j; i++) {
> +                       u32 h0 = full_name_hash(buf+i, buf+i, j-i);
> +
> +                       string_or |= h0;
> +               } /* i */
> +       } /* j */
> +
> +       /* The OR of all the hash values should cover all the bits */
> +       if (~string_or) {
> +               pr_err("OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
> +                      string_or, -1u);
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init test_hash_or(void)
> +{
> +       char buf[SIZE+1];
> +       u32 hash_or[2][33] = { { 0, } };
>         unsigned tests = 0;
>         unsigned long long h64 = 0;
>         int i, j;
> @@ -187,7 +215,6 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>                                 return -EINVAL;
>                         }
>
> -                       string_or |= h0;
>                         h64 = h64 << 32 | h0;   /* For use with hash_64 */
>                         if (!test_int_hash(h64, hash_or))
>                                 return -EINVAL;
> @@ -195,12 +222,6 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>                 } /* i */
>         } /* j */
>
> -       /* The OR of all the hash values should cover all the bits */
> -       if (~string_or) {
> -               pr_err("OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
> -                       string_or, -1u);
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -       }
>         if (~hash_or[0][0]) {
>                 pr_err("OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
>                         hash_or[0][0], -1u);
> @@ -232,6 +253,13 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>                 }
>         }
>
> +       pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void __init notice_skipped_tests(void)
> +{
>         /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
>  #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
>  #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> @@ -247,10 +275,24 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>  #else
>         pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
>  #endif
> +}
>
> -       pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
> +static int __init
> +test_hash_init(void)
> +{
> +       int ret;
>
> -       return 0;
> +       ret = test_string_or();
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       ret = test_hash_or();
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       notice_skipped_tests();
> +
> +       return ret;
>  }
>
>  static void __exit test_hash_exit(void)
> --
> 2.33.0
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20210926223322.848641-4-isabellabdoamaral%40usp.br.