On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 02:36:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 19:38:05 +0200 Jonas Rebmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This series fixes two bugs in string_unescape() regarding the > > destination buffer length. Both fixes are accompanied with kunit tests > > which would fail without the fixes. > > > > To make this possible, preparatory patches 1 and 2 improve and clean up > > testing helpers and 3 introduces test_unescape_one() which allows for > > targeted testing of the string_unescape() function. > > Sashiko complains about uncheched kunit_kzalloc() return val. > > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected] > > I wonder whether we really need the usual allocation-failure semantics > in kunit. Can we just make the kunit memory allocation functions abort > on error?
FWIW, having KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL built-in to kunit_kmalloc() et al sounds good to me. It's not clear to me why it wasn't done that way. Maybe so that assertion failures show the correct file and line number? But that can be solved by making them macros. As-is, every test has to check for NULL, which is unnecessary boilerplate. It's also resulted in test-specific wrapper functions that work around this, like alloc_buf() in lib/crypto/tests/test-utils.h. If a fallible version is needed in rare cases, it could be underscored: __kunit_kmalloc(). But I'm not sure any test needs that. - Eric
