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: <CA+wEVJZEho_9kvaGYstc=5f6iHGi69x=_0zT+jrC2EqSFUQMWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:42:24 +0200
From: Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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

Hi Greg

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:35 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

I assumed that an RFC (as in request for comments) that comes with proposed
changes to upstream files would be interpreted as a request for feedbacks
associated with the proposed changes (what is wrong or what is missing);
next time I will communicate the request explicitly.

WRT this specific patchset, the intent is to introduce formalism in specifying
code behavior (so that the same formalism can also be used to write and
review test cases), so my high level asks would be:

1) In the first part of patch 1/3 we explain why we are doing this and the high
level goals. Do you agree with these? Are these clear?

2) In the rest of the patchset we introduce the formalism, we propose some
specs (in patch 2) and associated selftests (in patch 3). Please let us know
if there is something wrong, missing or to be improved.

Thanks and kind regards
Gab

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>