linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] selftests/resctrl: Cleanup benchmark argument parsing

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: <h4ytykrf3cyisf4fdfs4nqobkzxt4r66slv6fsdr5v7uxqwk2v@gel7l6ymblh4>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 15:23:29 +0200
From:   Maciej Wieczór-Retman 
        <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] selftests/resctrl: Cleanup benchmark argument
 parsing

On 2023-08-29 at 16:04:29 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Maciej Wieczór-Retman wrote:
>> On 2023-08-23 at 16:15:56 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> >Benchmark argument is handled by custom argument parsing code which is
>> >more complicated than it needs to be.
>> >
>> >Process benchmark argument within the normal getopt() handling and drop
>> >entirely unnecessary ben_ind and has_ben variables. If -b is not given,
>> >setup the default benchmark command right after the switch statement
>> >and make -b to goto over it while it terminates the getopt() loop.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
>> >Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
>> >---
>> > .../testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 71 ++++++++++---------
>> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> >index 94516d1f4307..ae9001ef7b0a 100644
>> >--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> >+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> >@@ -169,28 +169,35 @@ static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits)
>> > 
>> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> > {
>> >-	bool has_ben = false, mbm_test = true, mba_test = true, cmt_test = true;
>> >-	int c, cpu_no = 1, argc_new = argc, i, no_of_bits = 0;
>> >+	bool mbm_test = true, mba_test = true, cmt_test = true;
>> >+	int c, cpu_no = 1, i, no_of_bits = 0;
>> > 	const char *benchmark_cmd[BENCHMARK_ARGS];
>> >-	int ben_ind, tests = 0;
>> > 	char *span_str = NULL;
>> > 	bool cat_test = true;
>> > 	char *skip_reason;
>> >+	int tests = 0;
>> > 	int ret;
>> > 
>> >-	for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
>> >-		if (strcmp(argv[i], "-b") == 0) {
>> >-			ben_ind = i + 1;
>> >-			argc_new = ben_ind - 1;
>> >-			has_ben = true;
>> >-			break;
>> >-		}
>> >-	}
>> >-
>> >-	while ((c = getopt(argc_new, argv, "ht:b:n:p:")) != -1) {
>> >+	while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "ht:b:n:p:")) != -1) {
>> > 		char *token;
>> > 
>> > 		switch (c) {
>> >+		case 'b':
>> >+			/*
>> >+			 * First move optind back to the (first) optarg and
>> >+			 * then build the benchmark command using the
>> >+			 * remaining arguments.
>> >+			 */
>> >+			optind--;
>> >+			if (argc - optind >= BENCHMARK_ARGS - 1)
>> >+				ksft_exit_fail_msg("Too long benchmark command");
>> 
>> Isn't this condition off by two?
>> 
>> I did some testing and the maximum amount of benchmark arguments is 62
>> while the array of const char* has 64 spaces. Is it supposed to have
>> less than the maximum capacity?
>> 
>> Wouldn't something like this be more valid with BENCHMARK_ARGS equal to
>> 64? :
>> 			if (argc - optind > BENCHMARK_ARGS)
>
>Certainly not off by two as the array must be NULL terminated but it seems 
>to be off-by-one (to the safe direction), yes.

Sorry, yes, off by one, now I can see the NULL just after the loop.

-- 
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman