linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:48:33 +0100
From:	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
To:	Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>,
	John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework

On 28 March 2016 at 13:20, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> El 28/03/16 a las 08:56, Emil Velikov escribió:
>>
>> Hi Emilio,
>>
>> On 9 March 2016 at 15:28, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android.
>>> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes
>>> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>
>>
>>>   tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h       | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying
>> the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise.
>> Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues
>> as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers
>> and/or header name with latter series).
>
>
> The problem is that one cannot use the system header without having built
> and installed the kernel first, which is rather problematic for eg.
> crosscompiling or virtualization. I discussed this with Gustavo and we
> agreed that the best way forward would be to copy the interfaces, as
> suggested by kernelnewbies' wiki[0]:
>
In the case of using a system header one can just `make
headers_install' without building the kernel, as mentioned in the very
same page ;-) Although I wasn't thinking that one should be using the
header already available in tree. After all this series is not
supposed to land before Gustavo's work, is it ?

>From a quick skim though the selftests, I cannot see cases where UAPI
headers are copied/duplicated.

> """
> The correct way to address this problem is to isolate the specific
> interfaces that you need, e.g. a single header file that is patched in a new
> kernel providing the ioctl numbers for a character device used by your
> program. In your own program, add a copy of that source file, with a notice
> that it should be kept in sync with new kernel versions.
> """
My understanding of the article is that it refers to building user
space programs that do _not_ live in the same tree as the kernel. Am I
missing something ?

Regards,
Emil