linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] memblock tests: update alloc_api to test memblock_alloc

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: <20220825213546.GA13624@sophie>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:35:46 -0500
From:   Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] memblock tests: update alloc_api to test
 memblock_alloc_raw

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:49:46AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.08.22 10:34, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Update memblock_alloc() tests so that they test either memblock_alloc()
> > or memblock_alloc_raw() depending on the value of alloc_test_flags. Run
> > through all the existing tests in memblock_alloc_api twice: once for
> > memblock_alloc() and once for memblock_alloc_raw().
> > 
> > When the tests run memblock_alloc(), they test that the entire memory
> > region is zero. When the tests run memblock_alloc_raw(), they test that
> > the entire memory region is nonzero.
> 
> Could add a comment stating that we initialize the content to nonzero in
> that case, and expect it to remain unchanged (== not zeroed).
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++--------
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h    | 25 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > index 65bff77dd55b..cf67687ae044 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > @@ -1,6 +1,29 @@
> >  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> >  #include "alloc_api.h"
> >  
> > +static const char * const func_testing[] = {
> > +	"memblock_alloc",
> > +	"memblock_alloc_raw"
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int alloc_test_flags = TEST_ZEROED;
> > +
> > +static inline const char * const get_func_testing(int flags)
> > +{
> > +	if (flags & TEST_RAW)
> > +		return func_testing[1];
> > +	else
> > +		return func_testing[0];
> 
> No need for the else, you can return directly.
> 
> Can we avoid the func_testing array?
> 
> 
> Persoally, I consider the "get_func_testing()" name a bit confusing.
> 
> get_memblock_alloc_name() ?
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
> > index 58f84bf2c9ae..4fd3534ff955 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@
> >  
> >  #define MEM_SIZE SZ_16K
> >  
> > +enum test_flags {
> > +	TEST_ZEROED = 0x0,
> > +	TEST_RAW = 0x1
> > +};
> 
> I'd have called this
> 
> enum test_flags {
> 	/* No special request. */
> 	TEST_F_NONE = 0x0,
> 	/* Perform raw allocations (no zeroing of memory).
> 	TEST_F_RAW = 0x1,
> };
> 
> Further, I'd just have use #define for the flags.
> 
Do you mean use two #defines instead of the enum? I thought enums were
preferred when defining related constants.

> > +
> >  /**
> >   * ASSERT_EQ():
> >   * Check the condition
> > @@ -63,6 +68,18 @@
> >  	} \
> >  } while (0)
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * ASSERT_MEM_NE():
> > + * Check that none of the first @_size bytes of @_seen are equal to @_expected.
> > + * If false, print failed test message (if running with --verbose) and then
> > + * assert.
> > + */
> > +#define ASSERT_MEM_NE(_seen, _expected, _size) do { \
> > +	for (int _i = 0; _i < (_size); _i++) { \
> > +		ASSERT_NE((_seen)[_i], (_expected)); \
> > +	} \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> >  #define PREFIX_PUSH() prefix_push(__func__)
> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -116,4 +133,12 @@ static inline void run_bottom_up(int (*func)())
> >  	prefix_pop();
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void verify_mem_content(void *mem, int size, int flags)
> 
> nit: why use verify here when the other functions "assert". I'd have
> called this something like "assert_mem_content()"
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
> 
Thanks,
Rebecca