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, 11 Nov 2023 04:08:28 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, dlatypov@...gle.com, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>, 
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, 
	"MaĆ­ra Canal" <mairacanal@...eup.net>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, 
	kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@...el.com>, Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] drm/vc4: tests: Use KUNIT_DEFINE_ACTION_WRAPPER

In order to pass functions to kunit_add_action(), they need to be of the
kunit_action_t type. While casting the function pointer can work, it
will break control-flow integrity.

vc4_mock already defines such a wrapper for drm_dev_unregister(), but it
involves less boilerplate to use the new macro, so replace the manual
implementation.

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
---

This patch should be a no-op, just moving to use a standard macro to
implement these wrappers rather than hand-coding them.

Let me know if you'd prefer to take these in separately via the drm
trees, or if you're okay with having this whole series go via
kselftest/kunit.

Cheers,
-- David

---
 drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/vc4_mock.c | 9 +++------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/vc4_mock.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/vc4_mock.c
index 63ca46f4cb35..becb3dbaa548 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/vc4_mock.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/vc4_mock.c
@@ -153,12 +153,9 @@ static int __build_mock(struct kunit *test, struct drm_device *drm,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void kunit_action_drm_dev_unregister(void *ptr)
-{
-	struct drm_device *drm = ptr;
-
-	drm_dev_unregister(drm);
-}
+KUNIT_DEFINE_ACTION_WRAPPER(kunit_action_drm_dev_unregister,
+			    drm_dev_unregister,
+			    struct drm_device *);
 
 static struct vc4_dev *__mock_device(struct kunit *test, bool is_vc5)
 {
-- 
2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog


Powered by blists - more mailing lists