On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 01:40:03PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 11:13 PM Thomas Weißschuh > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 12:51:48PM +0000, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > Add a KUnit test suite to verify the insertion and sorting of mappings > > > in struct uid_gid_map. This test suite validates both base extent > > > insertion (<= 5 mappings) and extended extent insertion (> 5 mappings, > > > which triggers the allocation of the forward and reverse pointers). > > > > > > This is especially useful for verifying that the __counted_by_ptr > > > attribute added to 'forward' and 'reverse' pointers works correctly > > > without causing any runtime bounds-checking panics or traps. > > > > AFAIU patch 1 is supposed to not change any behavior. > > You could move the unit test to the front to make that clearer > > and also validate it. > > > Patch 1 generates code to assert if a memory address outside of the > bounds of a pointer is accessed. So it does change the behavior.
It should not change the behavior observed by a well-behaved caller. And the test only simulates such a well-behaved caller. > Should I still move the test case? I think so. At least if you resend the series anyways. Make sure to also run the test before your other patch is applied. > > > > Assisted-by: Gemini Next > > > Change-Id: If0c2c197a35cd7429cf0d2d6e3b33f0d9f0be66c > > > > Change-Id should not be used upstream. > > See Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst. > > > I had removed it in v2. :-) Thanks! (...)
