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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:41:46 -0200
From:   Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:     Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>,
        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 2:21 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.

Alexey,

would you care if we turn those 2 tests into 1, taking care of the
zero page testing elsewhere ? Would you mind if I send out a patch for
that ?