linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9mcxW7zY33FPB+mZ75dQ2Xqo-viM9CpbL=0i0WXUPJRhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:47:03 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:36AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
> > being bitmap and printf), the rest having been converted to KUnit. In
> > addition to the enclosed patch, please consider this an RFC on the
> > removal of the "Test Module" kselftest machinery.
> >
> > I tested this using:
> >
> > $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 scanf
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v7:
> > - Remove redundant debug logs. (Petr Mladek)
> > - Drop Petr's Acked-by.
> > - Use original test assertions as KUNIT_*_EQ_MSG produces hard-to-parse
> >   messages. The new failure output is:
>
> It would be good if you put into cover letter, or even in the respectful patch
> the example of the error report for the old code and new code that it will be
> clear how it changes.
>
> >     vsscanf("0 1e 3e43 31f0 0 0 5797 9c70", "%1hx %2hx %4hx %4hx %1hx %1hx %4hx %4hx", ...) expected 837828163 got 1044578334
> >             not ok 1 " "
> >         # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92
> >     vsscanf("dc2:1c:0:3531:2621:5172:1:7", "%3hx:%2hx:%1hx:%4hx:%4hx:%4hx:%1hx:%1hx", ...) expected 892403712 got 28
> >             not ok 2 ":"
> >         # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92
> >     vsscanf("e083,8f6e,b,70ca,1,1,aab1,10e4", "%4hx,%4hx,%1hx,%4hx,%1hx,%1hx,%4hx,%4hx", ...) expected 1892286475 got 757614
> >             not ok 3 ","
> >         # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92
> >     vsscanf("2e72-8435-1-2fc-7cbd-c2f1-7158-2b41", "%4hx-%4hx-%1hx-%3hx-%4hx-%4hx-%4hx-%4hx", ...) expected 50069505 got 99381
> >             not ok 4 "-"
> >         # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92
> >     vsscanf("403/0/17/1/11e7/1/1fe8/34ba", "%3hx/%1hx/%2hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%4hx/%4hx", ...) expected 65559 got 1507328
> >             not ok 5 "/"
> >         # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: pass:0 fail:5 skip:0 total:5
> >         not ok 4 numbers_list_field_width_val_width
> >         # numbers_slice: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92
> >     vsscanf("3c87eac0f4afa1f9231da52", "%1hx%4hx%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%4hx%1hx", ...) expected 1257942031 got 2886715518

Makes sense. As you can see the error report for the new code is
included here. I'll add the old code's error report if I have to
respin v8.