linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] test_bits: add tests for BIT

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: <df371256-d981-433b-bcba-00a445e04c41@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:11:42 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin
 <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
 David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] test_bits: add tests for BIT_U*()

On 07/03/2025 at 02:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:08:15AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>> On 06/03/2025 at 22:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:58PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
>>>>
>>>> Add some additional tests in lib/test_bits.c to cover the expected
>>>> results of the fixed type BIT_U*() macros.
>>>
>>> Still would be good to have a small assembly test case for GENMASK*() as they
>>> went split and it will be a good regression test in case somebody decides to
>>> unify both without much thinking..
>>
>> Let me confirm that I correctly understood your ask. Would something
>> like this meet your expectations?
> 
> I believe it should be written in asm.

I am not confident enough in my assembly skills to submit asm patches to
the kernel. So, I would rather take a pass on that one.

Regardless, if somebody decides to unify both without much thinking as
you said, I am fully confident that the patch will get Nack-ed right
away. So, I do not have any concerns.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol