linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] rust: bitfield: Add KUNIT tests for bitfield

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: <DD949OHGD5WP.1X9TCLIEKSHGB@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:38:12 +0900
From: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "Alexandre Courbot"
 <acourbot@...dia.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.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>, "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>,
 "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, "Maarten Lankhorst"
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
 "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>, "John Hubbard"
 <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Timur Tabi" <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 <joel@...lfernandes.org>, "Elle Rhumsaa" <elle@...thered-steel.dev>, "Yury
 Norov" <yury.norov@...il.com>, "Daniel Almeida"
 <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Andrea Righi" <arighi@...dia.com>,
 <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] rust: bitfield: Add KUNIT tests for bitfield

On Sat Oct 4, 2025 at 12:23 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> - The right field is actually written (i.e. if the offset is off by one,
>>   the getter will return the expected result even though the bitfield
>>   has the wrong value),
>> - No other field has been affected.
>> 
>> So something like:
>> 
>>     pte = pte.set_present(true);
>>     assert!(pte.present());
>>     assert(pte.into(), 0x1u64);
>> 
>>     pte = pte.set_writable(true);
>>     assert!(pte.writable());
>>     assert(pte.into(), 0x3u64);
>> 
>> It might look a bit gross, but it is ok since these are not doctests
>> that users are going to take as a reference, so we case improve test
>> coverage at the detriment of readability.
>> 
>
> Ack. I will add these.
>
> Thanks for the review! (I am assuming with these changes you're Ok with me
> carrying your Reviewed-by tag on this patch as well, but please let me know if
> there is a concern.)

Please do not add tags that haven't been explicitly given. If we start
assuming one another's stance about patches, the trust we can have in
these tags is significantly reduced.

Doing so also doesn't achieve anything in terms of efficiency; if I am
ok with v3 I can give my Reviewed-by on it, and the tag can be picked up
along with the patch when it is applied.