linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kunit: Move kunit_abort() call out of kunit_do_failed

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]

Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 10:26:00 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kunit: Move kunit_abort() call out of kunit_do_failed_assertion()

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:54 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> KUnit aborts the current thread when an assertion fails. Currently, this
> is done conditionally as part of the kunit_do_failed_assertion()
> function, but this hides the kunit_abort() call from the compiler
> (particularly if it's in another module). This, in turn, can lead to
> both suboptimal code generation (the compiler can't know if
> kunit_do_failed_assertion() will return), and to static analysis tools
> like smatch giving false positives.
>
> Moving the kunit_abort() call into the macro should give the compiler
> and tools a better chance at understanding what's going on. Doing so
> requires exporting kunit_abort(), though it's recommended to continue to
> use assertions in lieu of aborting directly.

Should we rename it to __kunit_abort() to discourage that?
That would match what we do with __kunit_test_suites_init().

Daniel