linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Rust allocator and kvec improvements

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: <DBQ499KC66B1.2YNYBXUG343HK@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 11:01:02 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "David Gow" <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: "Hui Zhu" <hui.zhu@...ux.dev>, "Lorenzo Stoakes"
 <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Liam R .
 Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, "Uladzislau Rezki" <urezki@...il.com>,
 "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>, "Hui Zhu" <zhuhui@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Rust allocator and kvec improvements

On Thu Jul 31, 2025 at 6:14 AM CEST, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 10:51, Hui Zhu <hui.zhu@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> From: Hui Zhu <zhuhui@...inos.cn>
>>
>> This series adds tests and docs for Rust kernel components:
>> Patch 1 adds KUnit tests for allocator alignment guarantees.
>> Patch 2 documents KVec::as_slice with a usage example.
>> Patch 3 simplifies KVec test module naming convention.
>>
>> Both patches are co-developed with Geliang Tang. Based on [1].
>> Tested on x86_64 using KUnit.
>>
>
> This series looks good to me from a KUnit perspective. I've also
> tested it out across a bunch of architectures (UML, x86_64, arm,
> arm64) with no problems.
>
> A few minor notes:
> - You should squash patch 3 into patch 1: there's no need to introduce
> the test with one name only to rename it in a later patch.

The test introduced in patch 1 is not the one renamed in patch 3. :)