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

Message-ID: <20220720171432.GD4159@1wt.eu>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:14:32 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
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 Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:05:14AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > 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.

You would be very welcome, thank you!

Willy