linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: lib: prime

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO_48GEteARYZ_799dqWJvmSDzayw9+j2i71SH-xiGAN6UyC8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:38:54 +0530
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        lukas@...ner.de, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: lib: prime_numbers: update presence check

Hi Chris,

On 20 June 2017 at 17:17, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Sumit Semwal (2017-06-19 16:11:33)
>> On 19 June 2017 at 20:27, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Quoting Sumit Semwal (2017-06-19 15:46:20)
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >>
>> >> On 19 June 2017 at 19:21, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > Quoting Sumit Semwal (2017-06-19 14:44:32)
>> >> >> The test for prime numbers doesn't differentiate between missing
>> >> >> prime_numbers.ko and failure in prime_numbers.ko.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Update it to check for presence of the file itself to skip, therefore
>> >> >> correctly exercising the test failure case.
>> >> >
>> >> > modprobe -r shouldn't be executing the module? But you still need to
>> >> > unload the module before you can load it with the selftest module
>> >> > parameters. If you can't unload the module due to an earlier failure,
>> >> > you cannot discern whether or not the module itself is at fault, so
>> >> > still want to SKIP.
>> >>
>> >> My bad here: I missed the '-r' in the first modprobe.
>> >>
>> >> I am wondering if 'modprobe -q -n' won't suffice, as it is a dry-run
>> >> only, but will still search for the module? Unless of course, there's
>> >> something specific about '-q -r' that seems better still?
>> >
>> > I think there are two things to be tested here, both causing a SKIP.
>> >
>> >  - If the module doesn't exist at all; modprobe -q -n seems sensible for
>> >    querying its existence.
>> >
>> >  - If the module cannot be [un]loaded; for which I was using the
>> >    modprobe -q -r. If we can't unload the module, then we can't test :)
>>
>> :) Right; then the question is, for prime_numbers.ko, do we need to
>> differentiate between these 2 SKIPs?
>
> I don't see a downside to being verbose here. It both helps explain the
> test and alert the user about the remedy if desired.
>
>> The unloading of the prime_numbers module before running the test is
>> required since it isn't a standalone test module - unlike the
>> test_bitmap and test_printf ones.
>>
>> So then, for prime_numbers: if distinguishing between the two cases
>> you mentioned above isn't important, we can just keep your original
>> code. If it is important to distinguish, I can add the -q -n test to
>> query existence separately.
>>
>> For test_bitmap and test_printf tests, I think I will just go ahead
>> with -q -n itself, since we can assume that the test modules will only
>> be loaded/unloaded via these tests I guess?
>
> Yes. For that style of standalone test module, if the test module is still
> around it is probably for a reason :)

:) These test cases seem to try to load the module (and hence run the
tests), and then try to unload the module right after, so I think we
should be ok there.

> -Chris