linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv9 2/2] selftest/x86: add mremap vdso test

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:	Sat, 21 May 2016 22:27:52 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 2/2] selftest/x86: add mremap vdso test


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Should print on success:
> >> [root@...alhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32
> >>       AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf773f000
> >> [NOTE]        Moving vDSO: [f773f000, f7740000] -> [a000000, a001000]
> >> [OK]
> >> Or segfault if landing was bad (before patches):
> >> [root@...alhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32
> >>       AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf774f000
> >> [NOTE]        Moving vDSO: [f774f000, f7750000] -> [a000000, a001000]
> >> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> >
> > So I still think that generating potential segfaults is not a proper way to test a
> > new feature. How are we supposed to tell the feature still works? I realize that
> > glibc is a problem here - but that doesn't really change the QA equation: we are
> > adding new kernel code to help essentially a single application out of tens of
> > thousands of applications.
> >
> > At minimum we should have a robust testcase ...
> 
> I think it's robust enough.  It will print "[OK]" and exit with 0 on
> success and it will crash on failure.  The latter should cause make
> run_tests to fail reliably.

Indeed, you are right - I somehow mis-read it as potentially segfaulting on fixed 
kernels as well...

Will look at applying this after the merge window.

Thanks,

	Ingo