linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts

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]

Message-ID: <CAFd5g454zOO_wTgDRKxfCct0QguUbW1F4zKH4MTD9LrogAW8hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:17:28 -0500
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     davidgow@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:35 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Introduce a KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION for the likes of KUNIT_EXPECT_LT.
> This is analagous to KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
>
> Note: this patch leaves the EQ/NE macros untouched since those share
> some intermediate macros for the pointer-based macros.
>
> The current macro chain looks like:
> KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG => KUNIT_BASE_LT_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
> KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG => KUNIT_BASE_GT_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
> <ditto for LE, GE, and ASSERT variants>
>
> After this change:
> KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
> KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
>
> I.e. we've traded all the unique intermediary macros for a single shared
> KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION. The only difference is that users of
> KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION also need to pass the operation (==, <, etc.).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>