netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: test that kernel rejects a TCP CC with an invalid license

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: <874kgxbwlq.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:25:53 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: test that kernel rejects a
 TCP CC with an invalid license

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:


>> Ah, thanks! I always get confused about CHECK() as well! Maybe it should
>> be renamed to ASSERT()? But that would require flipping all the if()
>> statements around them as well :/
>
> Exactly, it's the opposite of assert (ASSERT_NOT %-), that
> CHECK(!found) is "assert not not found", right?) and it throws me off
> every. single. time.

Yup, me too, I have to basically infer the right meaning from the
surrounding if statements (i.e., whether it triggers an error path or
not).

> Ideally we complete the set of ASSERT_XXX() macros and convert as much
> as possible to that. We can also have just generic ASSERT() for all
> other complicated cases.

Totally on board with that! I'll try to remember to fix any selftests I
fiddle with (and not introduce any new uses of CHECK() of course).

-Toke