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, 4 Apr 2016 01:12:15 -0300
From:	Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
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

Hi,

El 28/03/16 a las 10:48, Emil Velikov escribió:
>>>> 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 ?

When I tried using the header directly from the kernel tree, the 
compiler told me not to do that and pointed me to that kernelnewbies 
page; I could try overriding the check like I see memfd does[0] but I 
don't know if that's the way to go. Shuah, what's your thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Emilio

[0] 
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c#n2