linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in test_vmx_nested

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: <ZikcgIhyRbz5APPZ@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:51:44 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, 
	Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@...mail.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, 
	Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in test_vmx_nested_state

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...
> > I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously connected
> > to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short.
> >
> 
> How about kvmsft_ ? It's based on the ksft_ prefix of kselftest.h. Maybe
> it's too close to ksft though and would be confusing when using both in
> the same test?

I would prefer something short, and for whatever reason I have a mental block
with ksft.  I always read it as "k soft", which is completely nonsensical :-)

> I'm not a huge fan of capital letters, but we could also do something like
> MALLOC()/CALLOC().

Hmm, I'm not usually a fan either, but that could actually work quite well in this
case.  It would be quite intuitive, easy to visually parse whereas tmalloc() vs
malloc() kinda looks like a typo, and would more clearly communicate that they're
macros.