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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aXOB6Sab5rlipPnH@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:12:57 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
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 Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 01:22:44PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> 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.

Nope, I run on the real HW with real initramfs and I saw the difference when
code was under development (not working). The version I sent works good. But
noted, next time I will run also above mentioned test cases, thanks for
pointing that out.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko