linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] list: test: Add test for list_del_init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YgPFGUyK4ood7WvU@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:43:53 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] list: test: Add test for list_del_init_careful()

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:28:11PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> The list_del_init_careful() function was added[1] after the list KUnit
> test. Add a very basic test to cover it.
> 
> Note that this test only covers the single-threaded behaviour (which
> matches list_del_init()), as is already the case with the test for
> list_empty_careful().
> 
> [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c6fe44d96fc1536af5b11cd859686453d1b7bfd1


Now the negative tests make more sense, thanks!

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
to the entire series.

> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes since v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220208040122.695258-1-davidgow@google.com/
> - Fix the test calling list_del_init() instead of
>   list_del_init_careful()
> - Improve the comment noting we only test single-threaded behaviour.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220205061539.273330-1-davidgow@google.com/
> - Patch 1/3 unchanged
> ---
>  lib/list-test.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c
> index ee09505df16f..f82a3c7788b8 100644
> --- a/lib/list-test.c
> +++ b/lib/list-test.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,25 @@ static void list_test_list_del_init(struct kunit *test)
>  	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_empty_careful(&a));
>  }
>  
> +static void list_test_list_del_init_careful(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	/* NOTE: This test only checks the behaviour of this function in
> +	 * isolation. It does not verify memory model guarantees. */
> +	struct list_head a, b;
> +	LIST_HEAD(list);
> +
> +	list_add_tail(&a, &list);
> +	list_add_tail(&b, &list);
> +
> +	/* before: [list] -> a -> b */
> +	list_del_init_careful(&a);
> +	/* after: [list] -> b, a initialised */
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, list.next, &b);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, b.prev, &list);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_empty_careful(&a));
> +}
> +
>  static void list_test_list_move(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>  	struct list_head a, b;
> @@ -707,6 +726,7 @@ static struct kunit_case list_test_cases[] = {
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_replace_init),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_swap),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_del_init),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_del_init_careful),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_move),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_move_tail),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_bulk_move_tail),
> -- 
> 2.35.0.263.gb82422642f-goog
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko