linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: remove virtual_address

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: <63801044-8aeb-4054-9ff9-185c60743f17@lucifer.local>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:13:26 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        aneesh.kumar@...nel.org, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: remove virtual_address_range test

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:36:05PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> >> About internal impl details, how is this test any different from merge.c, cow.c,
> >> etc - which consistently test/depend on whether the VMA splits/merges?
> > This is not a hugely civil/productive way of responding here to be honest, it's
> > what-about-ery and implying something that isn't very kind...
>
> Sorry if I have offended you, I did not mean to imply "two wrongs make a right", I
> meant to understand how the two tests differ...
>

I'm not offended :) just saying it's distracting from the technical conversation
- it's better to remain focused on the problem at hand.

I've made a couple technical suggestions that are hopefully reasonable - I think
introducing a new, clean, test that asserts very specifically what we want to is
a good way forwards here.

Thanks, Lorenzo