linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] cpumask: KUnit test suite fixes and improvements

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]

Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:25:54 +0200
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] cpumask: KUnit test suite fixes and improvements

Hi Yury,

On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 15:06 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > This series fixes the reported issues, and implements the suggested
> > improvements, for the version of the cpumask tests [1] that was merged
> > with commit c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test
> > suite").
> > 
> > These changes include fixes for the tests, and better alignment with the
> > KUnit style guidelines.
> 
> I wrote a couple comments, but the series looks OK to me in general.
> So for 2, 3 and 5:
> Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> 
> It's named as 'fix', but it fixes a test, and the kernel code itself
> looks correct. So, do you want to take it into 6.0-rc, or in 6.1?
> 
> I'm OK to do it this way or another, but for later -rc's it may look
> too noisy. And I'm not sure where to put a threshold.

Broken tests are worse than no tests IMHO, so I would at least like patches 1
and 2 to be merged for 6.0-rc. I don't want people to end up with false
positives, like Maíra did, for an entire release cycle.

Preferably I would also like to see 3 in 6.0-rc, so no renames will be needed in
6.1 anymore. Not that I expect anything to depend on this symbol (or filename)
by then, but I feel it's better not to risk that by waiting for 6.1.

Patches 4 and 5 can go with 6.1, as far as I'm concerned. Especially as the mask
logging patch (4) may need some work still.

Best,
Sander