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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 00:24:56 +0300 From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>, Magnus Groß <magnus.gross@...h-aachen.de>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] binfmt_elf: Introduce KUnit test On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:48:31PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > Adds simple KUnit test for some binfmt_elf internals: specifically a > regression test for the problem fixed by commit 8904d9cd90ee ("ELF: > fix overflow in total mapping size calculation"). > + /* No headers, no size. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, total_mapping_size(NULL, 0), 0); This is meaningless test. This whole function only makes sense if program headers are read and loading process advances far enough so that pointer is not NULL. Are we going to mock every single function in the kernel? Disgusting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists