linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] nolibc: add preliminary self tests

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: <ee428948-eaea-49bd-d8a3-c054a57f0094@gnuweeb.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:05:14 +0700
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@...weeb.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Fernanda Ma'rouf <fernandafmr12@...weeb.org>,
        Linux Kselftest Mailing List 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] nolibc: add preliminary self tests

On 7/20/22 11:20 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> What I certainly don't want to do is to have to cross-reference IDs
> with arrays, nor start to stack endless if/else that are even more
> painful to deal with, or have to renumber everything by hand once in
> a while.

Noted.

> But again, I'm open to better proposals. I reached the limits of my
> imagination there, but I do value the ability to "yyp" one line, change
> two arguments and gain one extra test for a different combination, and
> I really do not want to lose that simplicity. Note that for more complex
> tests, it's trivial to add a dedicated function and that's what was done
> for getdents64() which also serves as an example.

OK, I understand the reason behind this now. I and Fernanda will try
to visit this again at around 5.20-rc. *If* we can find a better
design that matches your requirements, we will send you an RFC to
improve it too.

Thank you!

-- 
Ammar Faizi