| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180918101107.74d8689a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:11:07 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
between commit:
50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK behavior")
from the net tree and commit:
c2ad647c6442 ("selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning across multiple records")
from the net-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
index 8fdfeafaf8c0,96fc6fe70293..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
@@@ -502,55 -502,28 +502,77 @@@ TEST_F(tls, recv_peek_multiple
EXPECT_EQ(memcmp(test_str, buf, send_len), 0);
}
+TEST_F(tls, recv_peek_multiple_records)
+{
+ char const *test_str = "test_read_peek_mult_recs";
+ char const *test_str_first = "test_read_peek";
+ char const *test_str_second = "_mult_recs";
+ int len;
+ char buf[64];
+
+ len = strlen(test_str_first);
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_first, len, 0), len);
+
+ len = strlen(test_str_second) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_second, len, 0), len);
+
+ len = sizeof(buf);
+ memset(buf, 0, len);
+ EXPECT_NE(recv(self->cfd, buf, len, MSG_PEEK), -1);
+
+ /* MSG_PEEK can only peek into the current record. */
+ len = strlen(test_str_first) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(memcmp(test_str_first, buf, len), 0);
+
+ len = sizeof(buf);
+ memset(buf, 0, len);
+ EXPECT_NE(recv(self->cfd, buf, len, 0), -1);
+
+ /* Non-MSG_PEEK will advance strparser (and therefore record)
+ * however.
+ */
+ len = strlen(test_str) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(memcmp(test_str, buf, len), 0);
+
+ /* MSG_MORE will hold current record open, so later MSG_PEEK
+ * will see everything.
+ */
+ len = strlen(test_str_first);
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_first, len, MSG_MORE), len);
+
+ len = strlen(test_str_second) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_second, len, 0), len);
+
+ len = sizeof(buf);
+ memset(buf, 0, len);
+ EXPECT_NE(recv(self->cfd, buf, len, MSG_PEEK), -1);
+
+ len = strlen(test_str) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(memcmp(test_str, buf, len), 0);
+}
+
+ TEST_F(tls, recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs)
+ {
+ char const *test_str = "test_read_peek_mult_recs";
+ char const *test_str_first = "test_read_peek";
+ char const *test_str_second = "_mult_recs";
+ int len;
+ char buf[64];
+
+ len = strlen(test_str_first);
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_first, len, 0), len);
+
+ len = strlen(test_str_second) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(send(self->fd, test_str_second, len, 0), len);
+
+ len = sizeof(buf);
+ memset(buf, 0, len);
+ EXPECT_NE(recv(self->cfd, buf, len, MSG_PEEK), -1);
+
+ len = strlen(test_str) + 1;
+ EXPECT_EQ(memcmp(test_str, buf, len), 0);
+ }
+
TEST_F(tls, pollin)
{
char const *test_str = "test_poll";
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists