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: <Zik_Aat5JJtWk0AM@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:18:57 -0700
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in
 test_vmx_nested_state

Hey,

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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 despise brevity in tests, so my strong preference is to use some form
of 'namespaced' helper. Perhaps others have better memory than
I do, but I'm quick to forget the selftests library and find the more
verbose / obvious function names helpful for jogging my memory.

> > 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.

Ooo, don't leave me out on the bikeshedding! How about TEST_MALLOC() /
TEST_CALLOC(). It is vaguely similar to TEST_ASSERT(), which I'd hope
would give the impression that an assertion is lurking below.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver