linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] lib/string_kunit: add test case for strnlen

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: <aV9cQ2QMA-jwFNUO@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 09:26:59 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Feng Jiang <jiangfeng@...inos.cn>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, pjw@...nel.org,
	palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, alex@...ti.fr,
	kees@...nel.org, andy@...nel.org, ebiggers@...nel.org,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, Jason@...c4.com,
	conor.dooley@...rochip.com, samuel.holland@...ive.com,
	charlie@...osinc.com, ajones@...tanamicro.com, nathan@...nel.org,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lib/string_kunit: add test case for strnlen

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Feng Jiang wrote:
> On 2026/1/7 19:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 4:35 AM Feng Jiang <jiangfeng@...inos.cn> wrote:

...

> >> Add a KUnit test for strnlen() to verify correctness across
> >> different string lengths and memory alignments.
> > 
> > Same comment as per patch 1 (it would probably require to call for
> > arch_strnlen() or something like this).
> 
> Thanks, makes sense.
> 
> I'll add the performance benchmarking (random filling + timing) in V2.
> 
> Since string functions are typically exported directly by each architecture
> without an arch_ prefix, I'll introduce a generic_strnlen() (based on
> lib/string.c) within the test for comparison.

Probably you want to make the existing one to have that name and use it inside
the test and in the fallback wrapper. We don't want to have duplicate code, it
is bad from maintenance perspective.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko