linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] selftests/resctrl: Add helpers for the non-contiguous test

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: <tck7kcpjdch3a3qkkwusft5zwptlhtmicx53zjcqk3x42w5p55@pf6vrmnh7deo>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:57:00 +0100
From: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
CC: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>, LKML
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] selftests/resctrl: Add helpers for the
 non-contiguous test

Hi,

On 2024-01-26 at 10:58:04 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>
>
>On 1/25/2024 4:14 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>
>
>>> +	fp = fopen(file_path, "r");
>>> +	if (!fp) {
>>> +		snprintf(reason, sizeof(reason), "Error in opening %s file\n", filename);
>>> +		ksft_perror(reason);
>> 
>> Was this the conclusion of the kstf_perror() discussion with Reinette? I 
>> expected a bit different outcome when I stopped following it...
>> 
>> In any case, it would be nice though if ksft_perror() (or some kselftest.h 
>> function yet to be added with a different name) would accept full printf 
>> interface and just add the errno string into the end of the string so one 
>> would not need to build constructs like this at all.
>> 
>> It will require a bit of macro trickery into kselftest.h. I don't know how 
>> it should handle the case where somebody just passes a char pointer to it, 
>> not a string literal, but I guess it would just throw an error while 
>> compiling if somebody tries to do that as the macro string literal 
>> concatenation could not build useful/compilable token.
>> 
>> It would make these prints informative enough to become actually useful 
>> without needed to resort to preparing the string in advance which seems
>> to be required almost every single case with the current interface.
>
>I think this can be accomplished with a new:
>	void  ksft_vprint_msg(const char *msg, va_list args)
>
>... but ksft_perror() does conform to perror() and I expect that having one
>support variable number of arguments while the other does to cause confusion.
>
>To support variable number of arguments with errno I'd propose just to use
>ksft_print_msg() with strerror(errno), errno as the arguments (or even %m
>that that errno handling within ksft_print_msg() aims to support). This does
>indeed seem to be the custom in other tests.

Does something like this look okay?

	fp = fopen(file_path, "r");
	if (!fp) {
		ksft_print_msg("Error in opening %s\n: %m\n", file_path);
		return -1;
	}

The '%m' seems to work fine but doesn't print errno's number code. Do you want
me to add errno after '%m' so it is the same as ksft_perror()? I looked through
some other tests where '%m' is used, and only few ones add errno with '%d'.

>Reinette

-- 
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman