linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] scanf: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9mNTyK9Ry_ko7EJvjiXYAzMMc_RoYoYPYROnZ4YFofHsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 06:38:02 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, 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, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:33 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for doing this. I'm happy with these changes from a KUnit POV.
>
> Two things I think we need to be careful about:
> - This and the printf test are both changing the m68k configs. This is
> fine, but could lead to a (harmless) merge conflict, so we should make
> that clear and try to avoid having them go up in separate trees. (And,
> if one gets merged first, rebase the other.)
> - There has been some pushback on some kselftest->kunit conversions in
> the past, especially if the test is being used to debug live systems
> (which typically don't have CONFIG_KUNIT enabled). I can't personally
> imagine that as an issue with scanf (though my imagination isn't
> perfect), so I'd doubt it's a problem.
>
> I'm assuming that, as mentioned in v2, these will go in via printk,
> not ksefltest/kunit. Either would work for me (but, as mentioned
> above, I think this and the printf tests should go in via the same
> tree).
>
> This series is:
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David

Thanks for the review David. Given the discussion on the printf series
I applied the same scrutiny to this series; I reduced the churn, and
kept the original control flow and failure messages.

I'll pick up your Reviewed-by and send v4 shortly.

Cheers.
Tamir