linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor `flags_overset_lsm_set_self

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: <196eaffe-c90b-4f44-a748-b786b46fd506@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:08:34 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
 Amit Vadhavana <av2082000@...il.com>, paul@...l-moore.com,
 jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, shuah@...nel.org
Cc: ricardo@...liere.net, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor
 `flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr` test

On 11/14/24 09:55, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 
> On 11/14/2024 8:25 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 11/12/24 11:28, Amit Vadhavana wrote:
>>> - Remove unnecessary `tctx` variable, use `ctx` directly.
>>> - Simplified code with no functional changes.
>>>
>>
>> I would rephrase the short to simply say Remove unused variable,
>> as refactor implies more extensive changes than what this patch
>> is actually doing.
>>
>> Please write complete sentences instead of bullet points in the
>> change log.
>>
>> How did you find this problem? Do include the details on how
>> in the change log.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Vadhavana <av2082000@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c | 7 +++----
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> index 66dec47e3ca3..732e89fe99c0 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> @@ -56,16 +56,15 @@ TEST(flags_zero_lsm_set_self_attr)
>>>    TEST(flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr)
>>>    {
>>>        const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
>>> -    char *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
>>> +    struct lsm_ctx *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
>>
>> Why not name this tctx and avoid changes to the ASSERT_EQs
>> below?
> 
> In the realm of linux security modules ctx is short for "context".
> I used tctx here because I was lazy. It would be much better to
> drop tctx, even if it means a tiny bit more change.
> 

Makes sense.

Amit, you can ignore this comment about tctx and ctx. Please do fix
others about the change log and short log.

thanks,
-- Shuah