linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 1/4] selftests: x86: check_initial_reg_state: remove manual counting and increase maintainability

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: <20240712084625.297249-2-usama.anjum@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:46:22 +0500
From: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
To: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel@...labora.com,
	"Chang S . Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
	Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] selftests: x86: check_initial_reg_state: remove manual counting and increase maintainability

- Removes manual counting of pass and fail tests
- Increase readability and maintainability of tests
- Print logs in standard format (without [RUN], [OK] tags)

Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
---
 .../selftests/x86/check_initial_reg_state.c   | 24 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_initial_reg_state.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_initial_reg_state.c
index 3bc95f3ed5859..b91c2b06b9881 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_initial_reg_state.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_initial_reg_state.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 
 #include <stdio.h>
+#include "../kselftest.h"
 
 unsigned long ax, bx, cx, dx, si, di, bp, sp, flags;
 unsigned long r8, r9, r10, r11, r12, r13, r14, r15;
@@ -53,20 +54,19 @@ asm (
 
 int main()
 {
-	int nerrs = 0;
+	ksft_print_header();
+	ksft_set_plan(2);
 
-	if (sp == 0) {
-		printf("[FAIL]\tTest was built incorrectly\n");
-		return 1;
-	}
+	if (sp == 0)
+		ksft_exit_fail_msg("Test was built incorrectly\n");
 
 	if (ax || bx || cx || dx || si || di || bp
 #ifdef __x86_64__
 	    || r8 || r9 || r10 || r11 || r12 || r13 || r14 || r15
 #endif
 		) {
-		printf("[FAIL]\tAll GPRs except SP should be 0\n");
-#define SHOW(x) printf("\t" #x " = 0x%lx\n", x);
+		ksft_test_result_fail("All GPRs except SP should be 0\n");
+#define SHOW(x) ksft_print_msg("\t" #x " = 0x%lx\n", x)
 		SHOW(ax);
 		SHOW(bx);
 		SHOW(cx);
@@ -85,17 +85,15 @@ int main()
 		SHOW(r14);
 		SHOW(r15);
 #endif
-		nerrs++;
 	} else {
-		printf("[OK]\tAll GPRs except SP are 0\n");
+		ksft_test_result_pass("All GPRs except SP are 0\n");
 	}
 
 	if (flags != 0x202) {
-		printf("[FAIL]\tFLAGS is 0x%lx, but it should be 0x202\n", flags);
-		nerrs++;
+		ksft_test_result_fail("FLAGS is 0x%lx, but it should be 0x202\n", flags);
 	} else {
-		printf("[OK]\tFLAGS is 0x202\n");
+		ksft_test_result_pass("FLAGS is 0x202\n");
 	}
 
-	return nerrs ? 1 : 0;
+	ksft_finished();
 }
-- 
2.39.2