On Wed 2021-02-03 15:47:27, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:35:07 -0800
> Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > With a big notice that all pointers of unhashed, I don't think we need to
> > > print it failed when we expect it to fail.
> > >
> > > If anything, skip the test and state:
> > >
> > > test_printf: hash test skipped because "make-printk-non-secret" is on the
> > > command line.
> >
> > Yeah, I'm fine with "fail" or "skip". "pass" is mainly what I don't
> > like. :)
>
> Is there any printing of the tests being done? Looks to me that the tests
> only print something if they fail. Thus "skip" and "pass" are basically the
> same (if "skip" is simply not to do the test).
It prints the total number of tests done. It should not count the
skipped tests.
We actually print a warning when crng is not initialized. In this
case, the test passes because we actually check the value and it
is an expected one.
> I mean, we could simply have:
>
>
> static void __init
> plain(void)
> {
> int err;
>
> + if (debug_never_hash_pointers)
> + return;
I am not 100% sure. But this might work. Just please print a warning
about the tests are skipped.
Best Regards,
Petr
