linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kunit: Add a macro to wrap a deferred action function

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: <4e0c8bb796a67af5fb901f831c5f87fe.mripard@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:51:52 +0000
From:   "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     "David Gow" <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     dlatypov@...gle.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, "Arthur Grillo" <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
        "Benjamin Berg" <benjamin.berg@...el.com>,
        "Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        "Daniel Vetter" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>,
        "Emma Anholt" <emma@...olt.net>,
        "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
        "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>,
        "Rae Moar" <rmoar@...gle.com>,
        "Richard Fitzgerald" <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        "Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        "Shuah Khan" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kunit: Add a macro to wrap a deferred action
 function

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 04:08:26 +0800, David Gow wrote:
> KUnit's deferred action API accepts a void(*)(void *) function pointer
> which is called when the test is exited. However, we very frequently
> want to use existing functions which accept a single pointer, but which
> may not be of type void*. While this is probably dodgy enough to be on
> the wrong side of the C standard, it's been often used for similar
> 
> [ ... ]

Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime