linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] printk: ringbuffer: Add KUnit test

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: <aFLZQ4jb928NhBly@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 17:20:35 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	John Ogness <jogness@...utronix.de>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: ringbuffer: Add KUnit test

On Tue 2025-06-17 17:03:13, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2025-06-12 08:29:07, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > The KUnit test validates the correct operation of the ringbuffer.
> > A separate dedicated ringbuffer is used so that the global printk
> > ringbuffer is not touched.
> > 
> > Co-developed-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
> 
> Looks good to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>

JFYI, the patch has been comitted into printk/linux.git,
branch rework/ringbuffer-kunit-test.

I am going to get it into the mainline in the next merge window
for 6.17.

> PS: I have got an idea to count the number of failed prb_reserve()
>     calls. And it really failed from time to time.
> 
>     I played with it and came up with two more patches. I am going
>     to send them tomorrow. I think that we should solve it separately
>     to avoid too many respins. The current patch is very good as
>     it is now.

I did not have much time to play with it today. I still have to
think about it...