linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

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:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:23:24 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>,
        Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rust: support running Rust documentation tests as
 KUnit ones

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:52 AM Martin Rodriguez Reboredo
<yakoyoku@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I can't remember that if this panic it will mention the path on it.
> Though if it does, then use something more explicit than
> `.unwrap()`.

It doesn't print it, and I am happy to make things more explicit, but
in which case(s) do you see it failing?

> Please do not use unwrap here, one can easily create a path that
> it's not compliant under `rust/test/doctests/kernel` and get no
> clue about where this script has failed. Use `.expect()` or
> something else instead.

The folder is removed every time, so that should not happen I think.
Yes, you can still hack things and call the script manually, but I
wouldn't call that "easily".

Nevertheless, I am happy to change it if we think there is a risk,
e.g. `rustdoc` changing the pattern (though we pin the version so
far).

Thanks for taking a look Martin!

Cheers,
Miguel