linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert get_mem_bw

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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:50:51 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Babu Moger
	<babu.moger@....com>, Maciej Wieczór-Retman
	<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>
CC: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert get_mem_bw_imc() fd
 close to for loop

Hi Ilpo,

On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
> 
> Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> consistency.

I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two
reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is
obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop
adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop
is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0
and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying
value.

Reinette