From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65C6270552; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.21 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769001916; cv=none; b=nqs2xAi3oGO1tMsTrn3fNauIrMC35+yWiIDHU9WVeJjCMBeJK644H5TPtwaj0sLhFytGetb69JWLPrHzUWPKWhjDFvUz+E6rEQXhPZvi/r5Vc7u5U/hjQFlm9YRWB8mH5uYHj1rhV2g0Db/Vh8tNoka0ILILaQpwDiLDVRnZuPE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769001916; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XeBlPKQ/bIh9f3wuYnUYoVfOpIarFk4q4JKbWHS6GSI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=c54oxxHpUmErT+Rz3oxcVaHJjuLOpkwSOjTCd7EibXLCeBqndSthpNCIr5Tuk1dtFCcvaVBBKR7nAjX7VTY9+RwzSTmWb7H+Bgv6GSwgBjVoVXvj1Gs+nwfuyTmFDMEKpkQPcCknj9KRb8MJxktBliyr1dyxQiq/om73LaB1HbY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=RIqhPIdK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.21 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="RIqhPIdK" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1769001915; x=1800537915; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=XeBlPKQ/bIh9f3wuYnUYoVfOpIarFk4q4JKbWHS6GSI=; b=RIqhPIdKe4VSPBpZUZC+dlnoCNLYJ6yTa1aspeY5Rl7iz+C3e8XMdszo AE2RuHOS+z1zWG21yJsSw0HezaznFgtn9v2P1KjgbCyoo+cSfg/1Q1QSB UOLe/YXGQe001nP8GHg4UtNirLPYr915q+QrrPANmIrXAS90JU3geKxO3 ECRStMn2voxhzXHnrfG549iK2Rb+FyldLNmHl3T3DbD0f/UyHxRbRirYp 8cQDHiyhzWwBa8uNLBLCXuwJyvdUKHnrKqx83wQHG/QEjrhydCelAY0o7 o8CNYLzXOnkSaSABS+uNUR2SkR+Ra4EaphtZ2uHVm9dsJeFBOd6dGmETx w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: KsgkR2SHQies5leNCRyg4w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 3R9nzVnPRsKZZNKW5ohVag== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11678"; a="70138723" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,242,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="70138723" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by orvoesa113.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2026 05:25:14 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: rxwxT1iLR/iYeJ7B5rrJXQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: y3TQR7Q5TAyQehJvamb3SA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,242,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="206506760" Received: from pgcooper-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.73]) by orviesa007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2026 05:25:12 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 15:25:09 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Dmitry Antipov Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Andrew Morton , Kees Cook , Carlos Maiolino , Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: adjust handling of a few numerical mount options Message-ID: References: <20260119160623.a762c3d64f230936198dc17e@linux-foundation.org> <20260120141229.356513-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru> <20260120141229.356513-3-dmantipov@yandex.ru> <20260120225531.GZ15551@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 08:21:42AM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 14:55 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Yes.  Common code needs to have a rigorous self test suite, because I > > see no point in replacing inadequately tested bespoke parsing code with > > inadequately tested common parsing code. > > Nothing to disagree but: > > 1) My experience clearly shows that it takes a few patch submission > iterations and a bunch of e-mails just to notice that the tests are > mandatory for lib/ stuff. If it is really a requirement, it is worth > to be mentioned somewhere under Documentation/process at least. Feel free to submit an update! :-) Sorry that I mentioned it one or two versions later than I should have. > 2) I've traced memparse() back to 2006 at least, and (if I didn't miss > something) there is no actual tests for it since them. And it's hard to > see a point in testing memvalue() prior to testing its actual workhorse. Yes, the historical code needs test cases. I added a few for get_option*() for example before touching that code. So you're welcome to start test cases for memparse(), I will appreciate that! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko