linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications

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: <2025102111-facility-dismay-322e@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:35:46 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	safety-architecture@...ts.elisa.tech, acarmina@...hat.com,
	kstewart@...uxfoundation.org, chuckwolber@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 06:59:57PM +0200, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> [1] was an initial proposal defining testable code specifications for
> some functions in /drivers/char/mem.c.
> However a Guideline to write such specifications was missing and test
> cases tracing to such specifications were missing.
> This patchset represents a next step and is organised as follows:
> - patch 1/3 contains the Guideline for writing code specifications
> - patch 2/3 contains examples of code specfications defined for some
>   functions of drivers/char/mem.c
> - patch 3/3 contains examples of selftests that map to some code
>   specifications of patch 2/3
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250821170419.70668-1-gpaoloni@redhat.com/

"RFC" implies there is a request.  I don't see that here, am I missing
that?  Or is this "good to go" and want us to seriously consider
accepting this?

thanks,

greg k-h