linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] lib: stackinit: Convert to KUnit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202203230844.0B6C73765@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:46:31 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: stackinit: Convert to KUnit

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 03:30:22PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Kees,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:12 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > Convert to running under Kunit (and retain being able to run stand-alone
> > too). Building under Clang (or GCC 12) with CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO=y,
> > this now passes as expected:
> >
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py config --make_option LLVM=1
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run overflow --make_option LLVM=1 \
> >         --kconfig_add CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO=y
> > ...
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 02788ebcf521fe78 ("lib:
> stackinit: Convert to KUnit") upstream.
> 
> Out of curiosity, I gave this a try on m68k, and it still seems to
> fail the same way of before[1]:
> [...]
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAMuHMdW6N40+0gGQ+LSrN64Mo4A0-ELAm0pR3gWQ0mNanyBuUQ@mail.gmail.com

Ah yes! Thanks for the reminder. I will take a look at this. Clearly, it's
an issue with memory layout assumptions that don't match on m68k, etc.

-- 
Kees Cook