linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] memblock tests: add range tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221011041910.GA7782@sophie>
Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:19:10 -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 1/5] memblock tests: add range tests for
 memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:16:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.10.22 01:41, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Add tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() that are very similar to
> > the range tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/memblock/Makefile               |    2 +-
> >   tools/testing/memblock/main.c                 |    2 +
> >   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c      | 1208 +++++++++++++++++
> >   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h      |    9 +
> >   4 files changed, 1220 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c
> >   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > index 246f7ac8489b..2310ac4d080e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ CFLAGS += -I. -I../../include -Wall -O2 -fsanitize=address \
> >   LDFLAGS += -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined
> >   TARGETS = main
> >   TEST_OFILES = tests/alloc_nid_api.o tests/alloc_helpers_api.o tests/alloc_api.o \
> > -		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o
> > +		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.o
> >   DEP_OFILES = memblock.o lib/slab.o mmzone.o slab.o
> >   OFILES = main.o $(DEP_OFILES) $(TEST_OFILES)
> >   EXTR_SRC = ../../../mm/memblock.c
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > index 4ca1024342b1..278f9dec5008 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> >   #include "tests/alloc_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/alloc_helpers_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/alloc_nid_api.h"
> > +#include "tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/common.h"
> >   int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >   	memblock_alloc_checks();
> >   	memblock_alloc_helpers_checks();
> >   	memblock_alloc_nid_checks();
> > +	memblock_alloc_exact_nid_checks();
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> 
> 
> memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves exactly the way
> memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves -- which is essentially
> memblock_alloc_raw().
> 
> So do we really need a separate set of tests for these?
> 
Instead of a separate set of tests, I could add a flag for
memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() to test_flags so that the range tests in
alloc_nid_api.c could be run with that flag. Do you think I should do
that, or omit tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE)
altogether?

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
Thanks,
Rebecca