netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next RFC] selftest: add abstractions for net selftests

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: <CAHG7+CBWF-gLcNfvnP2NQjkAwgtv+k6=0DndN1Mu2b+1acHj-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:24:58 +0300
From:	Alexandru Copot <alex.mihai.c@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, willemb@...gle.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next RFC] selftest: add abstractions for net selftests

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> +       for (i = 0; i < test->testcase_count; i++) {
>> +               rc = test->run(ptr);
>> +               allrc |= rc;
>> +
>> +               if (test->abort_on_fail && rc) {
>> +                       printf("Testcase %d failed, aborting\n", i);
>> +               }
>
>
> I think here you wanted to abort but didn't?

Yes, I forgot to break;

>> +#define CHECK(cond,fmt,...)                            \
>> +       do {                                            \
>> +               if (!(cond)) {                          \
>> +                       fprintf(stderr, "(%s, %d): " fmt,       \
>> +                                       __FILE__, __LINE__,
>> ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> +                       perror("");                     \
>> +                       return 1;                       \
>> +               }                                       \
>> +       } while (0)
>
>
> Isn't it a bit error-prone if in the middle of somewhere this check fails
> and the function suddenly returns 1?
>
> What if this is called from a function that was declared as void or to
> return a pointer to a struct etc.?

Well, I tought of using this only in your high-level testcase methods
(test->run()).
It is also easier to see what is actually being tested.

For anything else the user is free to use any other functions or
return conventions
as the test requires.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html