linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] list: add kunit test for private list primitives

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: <CA+CK2bCOuPGvtcDx0P3a8CZ6EmnjzFfF=gJehpafNNBHX9reWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 14:48:03 -0500
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kees@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, 
	tamird@...il.com, raemoar63@...il.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, 
	diego.daniel.professional@...il.com, rppt@...nel.org, pratyush@...nel.org, 
	jasonmiu@...gle.com, graf@...zon.com, dmatlack@...gle.com, 
	rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] list: add kunit test for private list primitives

On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 2:47 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 02:57, Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add a KUnit test suite for the new private list primitives.
> >
> > The test defines a struct with a __private list_head and exercises every
> > macro defined in <linux/list_private.h>.
> >
> > This ensures that the macros correctly handle the ACCESS_PRIVATE()
> > abstraction and compile without warnings when acting on private members,
> > verifying that qualifiers are stripped and offsets are calculated
> > correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
> > ---
>
> Thanks -- I'm glad to see tests added with this!
>
> I'd be okay with this living in the same config option as the other
> list tests (LIST_KUNIT_TEST) if you'd prefer, but don't particularly
> mind either way.

I prefer to keep them separate just because they work differently. The
other list tests emphasis on runtime correctness, and here emphasizes
on verifying ACCESS_PRIVATE() does not generate compiler warnings.

> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

Thanks!

Pasha