linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/mm: mseal

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]

Message-ID: <097a3458-0126-48e3-ba0d-d7dc7b9069d2@lucifer.local>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:14:41 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        pedro.falcato@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/mm: mseal_test add more tests

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:45:56AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote:
> HI Andrew
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:55 PM <jeffxu@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> >
> > Add more testcases and increase test coverage, e.g. add
> > get_vma_size to check VMA size and prot bits.

This commit message is ridiculously short for such a massive change, even for
test code.

> >
>
> Could you please pull the self-test part of this patch series to mm-unstable ?
> It will help to prevent regression.

No, please don't.

This needs review.

These tests establish a precedent as to how mseal should behave, this is
something that needs community review, not to just be taken.

There's already been a great deal of confusion/contentious discussion
around mseal() and its implementation.

Pushing in ~800 lines of test code asserting how mseal() should behave
without review isn't helping things.

Also, this is a really unusual way to send a series - why is this a 2/2 in
reply to the 1/2 and no cover letter? Why is this change totally unrelated
to the other patch?

Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can
ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?

Sorry to be contentious here, but I think we need to find a more
constructive, collaborative way forward with mseal() and to act with a
little more caution, given the problems that the original series has caused
I'd think this is in the best interests of all.

Thanks for understanding!

>
> The first part ([PATCH v1 1/2] mseal: fix mmap(FIXED) error code) can
> be ignored as Liam proposed to fix it differently.
>
> Thanks
> -Jeff
>
> -Jeff
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c | 826 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 759 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> > index e7991e5fdcf3..4b3f883aae17 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c