On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Lukas Anzinger <l.anzinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > I've updated the post to reflect your concerns, at least I hope so. > >> It's a nice blog post, but with lots of unnecessary noise accusing kmod of NIH for such a simple bug caused by out-of-tree modules (thus not really tested). > > The bug might be caused by out-of-tree modules but it's still a > use-after-free. Don't get me wrong, the code quality of kmod seems yep and the patch you sent is already applied. > quite high and way above average to me. I was just a bit "disappointed > that the hash implementation is part of the core that makes the > impression of NIH because it's not really documented (no doxygen The doxygen documentation is more focused on the exposed API, not the internal implementation. We do have some documentation on some of the functions, but documenting all the internal implementation is not really a goal. > comments or something similar) and no unit tests although kmod ships a > testsuite. Adding test cases for the hash implementation would be really good. Bare in mind the testsuite was added much later (kmod 5 I think) and focused on testing the libkmod API and the tools (modprobe, modinfo, depmod, etc). There are some tests for internal functions, but they were added after we found bugs in them. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
