| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 15:20:14 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
Cc: 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 v2 2/5] test_hash.c: split test_int_hash into
arch-specific functions
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:33 AM Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br> wrote:
>
> Split 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.
>
> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
> ---
This looks good to me. It's possibly worth fixing up the changelog
mixup between this and patch 3 if you send out a v3.
A minor suggestion re: commenting below, otherwise this is:
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
-- David
> lib/test_hash.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index d4b0cfdb0377..08fe63776c4f 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,53 @@ fill_buf(char *buf, size_t len, u32 seed)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Holds most testing variables for the int test */
It might be worth commenting what these variables actually are here,
as it's pretty confusing on a quick read through.
Maybe something like:
> +struct test_hash_params {
> + unsigned long long *h64;
/* Pointer to integer to be hashed. */
> + u32 h0;
/* Low 32-bits of integer to be hashed. */
> + u32 h1;
/* Arch-specific hash result. */
> + u32 h2;
/* Generic hash result. */
> + u32 (*hash_or)[33];
/* ORed hashes of given size (in bits) */
> +};
> +
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> +static bool __init
> +test_int__hash_32(struct test_hash_params *params)
> +{
> + params->hash_or[1][0] |= params->h2 = __hash_32_generic(params->h0);
> +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
> + if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
> + pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
> + params->h0, params->h1, params->h2);
> + return false;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return true;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> +static bool __init
> +test_int_hash_64(struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k)
> +{
> + params->h2 = hash_64_generic(*params->h64, *k);
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
> + if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
> + pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
> + *params->h64, *k, params->h1, params->h2);
> + return false;
> + }
> +#else
> + if (params->h2 > *m) {
> + pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> + *params->h64, *k, params->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,
> @@ -69,19 +116,13 @@ static bool __init
> test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> {
> int k;
> - u32 h0 = (u32)h64, h1, h2;
> + struct test_hash_params params = { &h64, (u32)h64, 0, 0, hash_or };
>
> /* Test __hash32 */
> - hash_or[0][0] |= h1 = __hash_32(h0);
> + hash_or[0][0] |= params.h1 = __hash_32(params.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__hash_32(¶ms))
> return false;
> - }
> -#endif
> #endif
>
> /* Test k = 1..32 bits */
> @@ -89,37 +130,24 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> u32 const m = ((u32)2 << (k-1)) - 1; /* Low k bits set */
>
> /* Test hash_32 */
> - hash_or[0][k] |= h1 = hash_32(h0, k);
> - if (h1 > m) {
> - pr_err("hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x", h0, k, h1, m);
> + hash_or[0][k] |= params.h1 = hash_32(params.h0, k);
> + if (params.h1 > m) {
> + pr_err("hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x", params.h0, k, params.h1, m);
> return false;
> }
>
> /* Test hash_64 */
> - hash_or[1][k] |= h1 = hash_64(h64, k);
> - if (h1 > m) {
> - pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x", h64, k, h1, m);
> + hash_or[1][k] |= params.h1 = hash_64(h64, k);
> + if (params.h1 > m) {
> + pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x", h64, k, params.h1, m);
> 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_hash_64(¶ms, &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;
> }
>
> --
> 2.33.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists