linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKwiHFjnY-c01rvkzNRz=h=L-AxRMyUtp2G0b17akF82tAOHQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:47:01 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, 
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, 
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, 
	Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] printf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:

> > > I have just quickly tested this before leaving for a week.
> > > And I am fine with the result.
> >

Thanks, Petr, for demonstrating how it looks in a failure case.

> > Seems reasonable to me. But I want a consensus with Rasmus.
>
> I have a local v4 where I've added the same enhancement as the scanf
> patches so that assertions log the line in the top-level test.
>
> I'll wait for Rasmus' reply before sending.

I think all my concerns are addressed, with the lines printed in case
of error telling what is wrong and not that memcmp() evaluating to 1
instead of 0, and with the final free-form comment including that "ran
448 tests". If you feel that word is confusing when there's
"obviously" only 28 "test" being done, feel free to change that to
"did 448 checks" or "did 448 individual checks" any other better
wording.

Rasmus