linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: fix proc-self-map-files selftest for arm

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: <20181015172140.GJ2401@uranus.lan>
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:21:40 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix proc-self-map-files selftest for arm

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 01:55:14PM -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> That is what I also had in mind, thus the patch. I just realized we had
> another issue on LKFT (our functional tests tool) for
> proc-self-map-files-001.c. Test 001 does pretty much the same as 002, but
> without the MAP_FIXED mmap flag.
> 
> Is it okay to consolidate both tests into just 1, and focus in checking
> procfs numbers conversion only, rather than if mapping 0 is allowed or not ?
> Can I send a v2 with that in mind ?

As to me -- yes, I would move zero page testing to a separate memory testcase.
But since Alexey is the former author of the tests better wait for his opinion.