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:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:16:35 +0800
From:   David Gow <>
To:     Daniel Latypov <>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        KUnit Development <>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        Shuah Khan <>,
        Jeremy Kerr <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in executor

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:13 AM Daniel Latypov <> wrote:
> Per [1], we might not need the array-of-array of kunit_suite's.
> This RFC patch previews the changes we'd make to the executor to
> accommodate that by making the executor automatically flatten the
> kunit_suite*** into a kunit_suite**.
> The test filtering support [2] added the largest dependency on the
> current kunit_suite*** layout, so this patch is based on that.
> It actually drastically simplifies the code, so it might be useful to
> keep the auto-flattening step until we actually make the change.
> [1]
> [2]
> Cc: Jeremy Kerr <>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <>
> ---

I really like this. My only real concern is that it's a little unclear
exactly what the resulting layout is, particularly as to what the
"make_suite_set" function does. It'd be nice to have some more
documentation, either as a comment on the function or a more detailed
commit message, which explicitly describes the old format (an array
(with start and end pointers) of NULL-terminated arrays of suites),
and the new format (a single, NULL-terminated array with both start
and end pointers).

Re: NULL termination. If we're already using both start and end
pointers, the NULL terminator seems useless. (And if we've got a NULL
terminator, why are we passing the end pointer around.) It's not
super-clear why we'd want both, though the comments in this reply do
clarify things a bit:

Finally, if we do want a runtime way of adding suites to the
executor's list at runtime (which was suggested as a way of working
around some suites which might need extra, global, initialisation),
this might change how that'd have to be implemented a bit. I'm not too
worried about that, though: it's something that's probably better
served with something like a linked list of suite_sets or the like,

In any case, I've tested this in the non-module case, and it seems to work fine.
Tested-by: David Gow <>

-- David

Powered by blists - more mailing lists