Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-146039-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:34:35 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org>
Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com,
	willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, surenb@google.com, merimus@google.com,
	rdunlap@infradead.org, jeffxu@google.com, jorgelo@chromium.org,
	groeck@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	pedro.falcato@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, deraadt@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] selftest mm/mseal memory sealing
Message-ID: <202404151733.59C3EF3@keescook>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <20240415163527.626541-4-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <e1744539-a843-468a-9101-ce7a08669394@collabora.com>
 <CABi2SkVnhcOpeA63XoKq97Uc_VyWdLUqYdOtUXxJ1fos5-Tq2g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABi2SkVnhcOpeA63XoKq97Uc_VyWdLUqYdOtUXxJ1fos5-Tq2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 01:27:32PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:32 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please fix following for this and fifth patch as well:
> >
> > --> checkpatch.pl --codespell tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> >
> > WARNING: Macros with flow control statements should be avoided
> > #42: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c:42:
> > +#define FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(c) do {\
> > +               if (!(c)) {\
> > +                       ksft_test_result_fail("%s, line:%d\n", __func__,
> > __LINE__);\
> > +                       goto test_end;\
> > +               } \
> > +       } \
> > +       while (0)
> >
> > WARNING: Macros with flow control statements should be avoided
> > #50: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c:50:
> > +#define SKIP_TEST_IF_FALSE(c) do {\
> > +               if (!(c)) {\
> > +                       ksft_test_result_skip("%s, line:%d\n", __func__,
> > __LINE__);\
> > +                       goto test_end;\
> > +               } \
> > +       } \
> > +       while (0)
> >
> > WARNING: Macros with flow control statements should be avoided
> > #59: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c:59:
> > +#define TEST_END_CHECK() {\
> > +               ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", __func__);\
> > +               return;\
> > +test_end:\
> > +               return;\
> > +}
> >
> I tried to fix those warnings of checkpatch in the past, but no good
> solution. If I put the condition check in the test, the code will have
> too many "if" and decrease readability.  If there is a better
> solution, I'm happy to do that, suggestions are welcome.

Yeah, these are more "conventions" from checkpatch. I think it's fine to
ignore this warning, especially for selftests.

-- 
Kees Cook