linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] resource,kexec: walk_system_ram_res

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZxKFfOIOhxlw2YJD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 18:57:48 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
	mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, takahiro.akashi@...aro.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource,kexec: walk_system_ram_res_rev must retain
 resource flags

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:39:00PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 10/18/24 at 05:52pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 05:51:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:52:47PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > On 10/18/24 at 03:22pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:18:42AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:

...

> > > > > Can we get more test cases in the respective module, please?
> > > > 
> > > > Do you mean testing CXL memory in kexec/kdump? No, we can't. Kexec/kdump
> > > > test cases basically is system testing, not unit test or module test. It
> > > > needs run system and then jump to 2nd kernel, vm can be used but it
> > > > can't cover many cases existing only on baremetal. Currenly, Redhat's
> > > > CKI is heavily relied on to test them, however I am not sure if system
> > > > with CXL support is available in our LAB.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure if I got you right.
> > > 
> > > I meant since we touch resource.c, we should really touch resource_kunit.c
> > > *in addition to*.
> > 
> > And to be more clear, there is no best time to add test cases than
> > as early as possible. So, can we add the test cases to the (new) APIs,
> > so we want have an issue like the one this patch fixes?
> 
> I will have a look at kernel/resource_kunit.c to see if I can add
> something for walk_system_ram_res_rev(). Thanks.

Thank you! I will appreciate that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko