linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd

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:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:53:30 -0300
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd_open() result


Hello Mike,

Thanks for promptly reviewing the patches.

Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:42:07PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> If the userfaultfd test is run on a kernel with CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=n, it
>> will report that the system call is not available yet go ahead and continue
>> anyway:
>>
>>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
>>   bounces: 0, mode:, register failure
>>
>> This is because userfaultfd_open() returns 0 on success and 1 on error but
>> all callers assume that it returns < 0 on error.
>>
>> Since the convention of the test as a whole is the one used by
>> userfault_open(), fix its callers instead. Now the test behaves correctly:
>>
>>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> It seems that this patch is superseded by the second patch in this series.

Yes, but since this is a simple bugfix while the other patch is a
proposed improvement which can be debated, I think it's worthwhile to
keep them separate.

--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center