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: <CABi2SkXDVgiUeC1StbfggvtiYG_kDxQJsZPpDw-NDPNv6-dwmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:54:09 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
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

Hi Lorenzo

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:44 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
1/2 has a fix that 2/2 is depending on. That is the reason they are together.

> > > 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?
> > >
It is not an RFC because it doesn't change any semanic to mseal. The
updated test will pass on linux main as well as 6.10. The increased
coverage will help to prevent future regression, i.e. during
refactoring.

I will add a cover letter, split the tests and add more comments to
help the review.

Thanks
-Jeff