linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 62/67] signal/testing: Dont look for __SI

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: <20180327162731.072188869@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:54 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 62/67] signal/testing: Dont look for __SI_FAULT in userspace

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

commit d12fe87e62d773e81e0cb3a123c5a480a10d7d91 upstream.

Fix the debug print statements in these tests where they reference
si_codes and in particular __SI_FAULT.  __SI_FAULT is a kernel
internal value and should never be seen by userspace.

While I am in there also fix si_code_str.  si_codes are an enumeration
there are not a bitmap so == and not & is the apropriate operation to
test for an si_code.

Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Fixes: 5f23f6d082a9 ("x86/pkeys: Add self-tests")
Fixes: e754aedc26ef ("x86/mpx, selftests: Add MPX self test")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c   |    3 +--
 tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |   13 ++++++-------
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c
@@ -419,8 +419,7 @@ void handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si,
 		br_count++;
 		dprintf1("#BR 0x%jx (total seen: %d)\n", status, br_count);
 
-#define __SI_FAULT      (3 << 16)
-#define SEGV_BNDERR     (__SI_FAULT|3)  /* failed address bound checks */
+#define SEGV_BNDERR     3  /* failed address bound checks */
 
 		dprintf2("Saw a #BR! status 0x%jx at %016lx br_reason: %jx\n",
 				status, ip, br_reason);
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
@@ -224,19 +224,18 @@ void dump_mem(void *dumpme, int len_byte
 	}
 }
 
-#define __SI_FAULT      (3 << 16)
-#define SEGV_BNDERR     (__SI_FAULT|3)  /* failed address bound checks */
-#define SEGV_PKUERR     (__SI_FAULT|4)
+#define SEGV_BNDERR     3  /* failed address bound checks */
+#define SEGV_PKUERR     4
 
 static char *si_code_str(int si_code)
 {
-	if (si_code & SEGV_MAPERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_MAPERR)
 		return "SEGV_MAPERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_ACCERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_ACCERR)
 		return "SEGV_ACCERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_BNDERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_BNDERR)
 		return "SEGV_BNDERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_PKUERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_PKUERR)
 		return "SEGV_PKUERR";
 	return "UNKNOWN";
 }