linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: assert: export non-static functions

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: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:20:34 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
Cc: brendan.higgins@...ux.dev, rmoar@...gle.com, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: assert: export non-static functions

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 20:32, Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Export non-static functions from the assert.c file into the KUnit
> namespace in order to be able to access them from the tests if
> they are compiled as modules.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
> ---

I think this could be merged with patch 5, as it's not useful on its
own. Also, a few of the symbol names might be a little too generic to
be exported: maybe we should give them a 'kunit_assert' prefix?

Cheers,
-- David

>  lib/kunit/assert.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c
> index 867aa5c4bccf..f394e4b8482f 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ void kunit_assert_print_msg(const struct va_format *message,
>         if (message->fmt)
>                 string_stream_add(stream, "\n%pV", message);
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(kunit_assert_print_msg);
>
>  void kunit_fail_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>                               const struct va_format *message,
> @@ -112,6 +113,7 @@ VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT bool is_literal(const char *text, long long value)
>
>         return ret;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(is_literal);

I'm a bit worried about having such a generic name exported, even
conditionally and to a namespace. Maybe we could give this a
'kunit_assert' prefix, or put it in a separate, more specific
namespace?

>
>  void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>                                 const struct va_format *message,
> @@ -180,6 +182,7 @@ VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT bool is_str_literal(const char *text, const char *value)
>
>         return strncmp(text + 1, value, len - 2) == 0;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(is_str_literal);

I'm a bit worried about having such a generic name exported, even
conditionally and to a namespace. Maybe we could give this a
'kunit_assert' prefix, or put it in a separate, more specific
namespace?




>  void kunit_binary_str_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>                                     const struct va_format *message,
> @@ -232,6 +235,7 @@ void kunit_assert_hexdump(struct string_stream *stream,
>                         string_stream_add(stream, " %02x ", buf1[i]);
>         }
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(kunit_assert_hexdump);
>
>  void kunit_mem_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>                              const struct va_format *message,
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4014 bytes)