From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFB5C4332B for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DA620735 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725816AbgCWOXv (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:23:51 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:31930 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725807AbgCWOXv (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:23:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02NE6w1V022464 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:23:50 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ywf2fur9n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:23:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:47 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:45 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 02NENi1e20775074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:44 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC7CA4062; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26585A4066; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.197.207]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:23:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] ima-evm-utils: Add some tests for evmctl From: Mimi Zohar To: Vitaly Chikunov Cc: linux-integrity , Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:23:42 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20032314-0020-0000-0000-000003B98F53 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20032314-0021-0000-0000-000022120B25 Message-Id: <1584973422.5188.247.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.645 definitions=2020-03-23_05:2020-03-21,2020-03-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003230078 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Hi Vitaly, I really appreciate your creating this set of tests!  However, when you first posted this patch, I asked you to break it up into more manageable pieces to review.  I understand this isn't the Linux kernel, "just" some tests, but there is good reason that the Linux kernel development requires large patches be broken up into more manageable small, logical changes. I've recently asked a few people to help review this patch.  I understand that it is a lot of work to break this patch up into smaller patches, but it will simplify review. If I was to break up this patch, I would start by making the test driver and each of the tests a separate patch.  The test driver patch description should reference the GNU documentation, with an explanation as to why a custom driver is preferred[1]. thanks, Mimi [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Generalitie s-about-Testing.html#Generalities-about-Testing