linux-kernel - Re: linker-tables v5 testing

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:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:57:22 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: linker-tables v5 testing

On 11/23/2016 08:11 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> I think I'm ready to start pushing a new patch set out for review.
> Before I do that -- can I trouble you for letting your test
> infrastructure hammer it? I'll only push out the patches for review

Pushed into my testing branch

> based on this new set of changes once all tests come back OK for all
> architectures.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20161117-linker-tables-v5
>
> Fenguang & Guenter,
>
> Any chance I can trouble you to enable the new driver:
> CONFIG_TEST_LINKTABLES=y on each kernel configuration as it will run a
> test driver which will WARN_ON() if it finds any errors.
>
I added this to all defconfigs in the testing branch. That doesn't test
all configurations, but at least those which use a standard defconfig
as base, which by now is most of them.

Guenter

> If these warns are captured by your logs then we will see run time use
> issues of using this on any architecture for *all* the sections for
> linker tables. I had not bothered yet adding a test driver for section
> ranges given I already tested
> ./tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest script and confirm things
> are still a go.
>
> To the rest on Cc:
>
> Other than a few documentation improvements I think this is now
> done... Of course there may be more bike-shedding or few minor
> adjustments I may have missed -- Nickolas (or others), please do poke
> me with any last minute blockers you see before I push out a new patch
> set. I figure there may be some time before the tests are over and I
> could probably adjust the series to account for minor things that are
> eye-sores before requiring a full new submission.
>
> Also I have a draft edit of a paper on this (hasn't been adjusted to
> account for the new API changes yet), if you're in the US and you want
> to be anti-social and read something during turkey day perhaps that
> might help.
>
> http://drvbp1.linux-foundation.org/~mcgrof/papers/2016/11/21/linker-tables-20161121.pdf
>
> Oh and tools folks:
>
> cd tools/linker-tables/
> make clean
> make
> ./demo
>
>   Luis
>