linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] initramfs: get rid of custom hex2bin()

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: <20260123-locher-neider-24c1c9cc64f2@brauner>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:22:44 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	David Disseldorp <ddiss@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] initramfs: get rid of custom hex2bin()

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:20:41PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > Here is the refactoring to show that. This is assumed to go via PRINTK
> > > tree.
> > 
> > No, initramfs is maintained by the VFS and we already carry other patches.
> 
> If this applies cleanly, take them through it, I will be glad, thanks!
> 
> > If you want the kstrtox changes to go another route then I will take the
> > first two changes in a stable branch that can be merged.
> 
> I am fine with this route as long as the custom approach is gone.
> 
> > > I have tested this on x86, but I believe the same result will be
> > > on big-endian CPUs (I deduced that from how strtox() works).
> > 
> > Did you rerun the kunit tests the original change was part of or did you
> > do some custom testing?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the point. There were no test cases added for
> simple_strntoul() AFAICS. Did I miss anything?
> 
> (If I didn't that is the second point on why the patches didn't get enough
>  time for review and not every stakeholder seen them, usually we require
>  the test cases for new APIs.)

Sorry, I meant the kunit tests that do test the initramfs unpacking.