linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/livepatch: introduce tests

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, 9 Apr 2018 16:05:49 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/livepatch: introduce tests

On Sun 2018-04-08 11:42:31, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:36:46PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:49:48PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > > Add a few livepatch modules and simple target modules that the included
> > > regression suite can run tests against.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/Kconfig.debug                                  |  12 +
> > >  lib/Makefile                                       |   2 +
> > >  lib/livepatch/Makefile                             |  18 +
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_atomic_replace.c            |  69 +++
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c            |  43 ++
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_demo.c            | 132 ++++++
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_demo2.c           | 104 ++++
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_mod.c             |  24 +
> > >  lib/livepatch/test_klp_livepatch.c                 |  62 +++
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/Makefile                   |   1 +
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/Makefile         |   8 +
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/config           |   1 +
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh     | 202 ++++++++
> > >  .../testing/selftests/livepatch/test-callbacks.sh  | 526 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../testing/selftests/livepatch/test-livepatch.sh  | 177 +++++++
> > >  .../selftests/livepatch/test-shadow-vars.sh        |  13 +
> > >  16 files changed, 1394 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/Makefile
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_atomic_replace.c
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_demo.c
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_demo2.c
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_mod.c
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/livepatch/test_klp_livepatch.c
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/Makefile
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/config
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh
> > >  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test-callbacks.sh
> > >  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test-livepatch.sh
> > >  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test-shadow-vars.sh
> > 
> > I love this.  Nice work!
> > 
> > As you and Petr discussed, it would be nice to get rid of some of the
> > delays, and also the callback tests will be very important.
> 
> I've got v2 WIP that minimizes the delays, cleans up build flags, and
> adds a basic shadow variable test.

Sounds great.

> Since these tests are based on top of Petr's current patchsets for
> atomic replace and shadow variables, it probably makes sense for those
> to merge first.  I can post test results to his patchsets if that helps.

Sounds good to me. We could synchronize the merge. But I think that it
will not be a big deal if we would merge the atomic replace slightly
earlier if the tests needed some more love.


> These tests are basically a mash up of some of the tedious callback
> Documentation and shadow variable sample livepatches.  Since there will
> be a lot of duplication, should we just remove redundant doc/samples in
> favor of these tests?

Yup, it does not make sense to maintain two copies of basically
the same modules.

Best Regards,
Petr