linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] printf: convert self-test to KUnit

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: <CAJ-ks9kLmArqqPati8n0dwzhjccLmTuTHtkaSyf_F_1QXzCoRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:03 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:27 AM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 20:36, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
> > being bitmap and scanf), the rest having been converted to KUnit.
> >
> > I tested this using:
> >
> > $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 printf
> >
> > I have also sent out a series converting scanf[0].
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250204-scanf-kunit-convert-v3-0-386d7c3ee714@gmail.com/T/#u [0]
> >
>
> Sorry, but NAK, not in this form.
>
> Please read the previous threads to understand what is wrong with this
> mechanical approach. Not only is it wrong, it also actively makes the
> test suite much less useful.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f408efbd-10f7-f1dd-9baa-0f1233cafffc@rasmusvillemoes.dk/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/876cc862-56f1-7330-f988-0248bec2fbad@rasmusvillemoes.dk/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0ab618c7-8c5c-00ae-8e08-0c1b99f3bf5c@rasmusvillemoes.dk/
>
> I think the previous attempt was close to something acceptable (around
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/57976ff4-7845-d721-ced1-1fe439000a9b@rasmusvillemoes.dk/),
> but I don't know what happened to it.
>
> Rasmus

Thanks Rasmus, I wasn't aware of that prior effort. I've gone through
and adopted your comments - the result is a first patch that is much
smaller (104 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)) and failure messages
that are quite close to what is emitted now. I've taken care to keep
all the control flow the same, as you requested. The previous
discussion concluded with a promise to send another patch which didn't
happen. May I send a v2 with these changes, or are there more
fundamental objections? I'll also cc Arpitha and Brendan. The new
failure output:

    # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:95
vsnprintf(buf, 256, "%piS|%pIS", ...) wrote
'127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1', expected '127-000.000.001|127.0.0.1'
    # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:95
vsnprintf(buf, 19, "%piS|%pIS", ...) wrote '127.000.000.001|12',
expected '127-000.000.001|12'
    # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:131
kvasprintf(..., "%piS|%pIS", ...) returned
'127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1', expected '127-000.000.001|127.0.0.1'

Cheers,
Tamir