linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "list: test: fix tests for list_cut

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: <dd9b940d-c5a6-46aa-ab00-73cbb3cab635@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:18:31 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	<kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <richard120310@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "list: test: fix tests for list_cut_position()"



On 9/22/2024 8:05 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> This reverts commit e620799c414a035dea1208bcb51c869744931dbb.
> 
> The commit introduces unit test failures.
> 
>      Expected cur == &entries[i], but
>          cur == 0000037fffadfd80
>          &entries[i] == 0000037fffadfd60
>      # list_test_list_cut_position: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1
>      not ok 21 list_test_list_cut_position
>      # list_test_list_cut_before: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/list-test.c:444
>      Expected cur == &entries[i], but
>          cur == 0000037fffa9fd70
>          &entries[i] == 0000037fffa9fd60
>      # list_test_list_cut_before: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/list-test.c:444
>      Expected cur == &entries[i], but
>          cur == 0000037fffa9fd80
>          &entries[i] == 0000037fffa9fd70
> 
> Revert it.
> 
> Fixes: e620799c414a ("list: test: fix tests for list_cut_position()")
> Cc: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---

I ran into this as well.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>

>  lib/list-test.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c
> index 4f3dc75baec1..e207c4c98d70 100644
> --- a/lib/list-test.c
> +++ b/lib/list-test.c
> @@ -408,13 +408,10 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_position(struct kunit *test)
>  
>  	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2);
>  
> -	i = 0;
>  	list_for_each(cur, &list1) {
>  		KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]);
>  		i++;
>  	}
> -
> -	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1);
>  }
>  
>  static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test)
> @@ -439,13 +436,10 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test)
>  
>  	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1);
>  
> -	i = 0;
>  	list_for_each(cur, &list1) {
>  		KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]);
>  		i++;
>  	}
> -
> -	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2);

This test failure was also pointed out during an earlier review of the
patch..

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOSmn=SEwq3je3+vJ-S1Rwb=cLT2a3_WKOQsHu9xZYEZhrg@mail.gmail.com/

I suspect what we really want here is an explicit check against the
length of the lists.