linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] kunit: Add tests for faults

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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:28:18 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	"Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
	Thara Gopinath <tgopinath@...rosoft.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
	Zahra Tarkhani <ztarkhani@...rosoft.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] kunit: Add tests for faults

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:04:09PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The first test checks NULL pointer dereference and make sure it would
> result as a failed test.
> 
> The second and third tests check that read-only data is indeed read-only
> and trying to modify it would result as a failed test.
> 
> This kunit_x86_fault test suite is marked as skipped when run on a
> non-x86 native architecture.  It is then skipped on UML because such
> test would result to a kernel panic.
> 
> Tested with:
> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch x86_64 kunit_x86_fault
> 
> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>

If we can add some way to collect WARN/BUG output for examination, I
could rewrite most of LKDTM in KUnit! I really like this!

> ---
>  lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index f7980ef236a3..57d8eff00c66 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  #include <kunit/test-bug.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
>  #include <kunit/device.h>
>  
>  #include "string-stream.h"
> @@ -109,6 +110,117 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_try_catch_test_suite = {
>  	.test_cases = kunit_try_catch_test_cases,
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86

Why is this x86 specific?

-- 
Kees Cook