linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: fix and merge proc-self-map-file tests

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: <1541763936.3280758.1571224480.76F1EF1C@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:   Fri, 09 Nov 2018 09:45:36 -0200
From:   Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:     adobriyan@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix and merge proc-self-map-file tests

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> > testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
> > mapping virtual address 0.
> > 
> > Lowest virtual address for user space mapping in other architectures,
> > like arm, is *at least* *(PAGE_SIZE * 2) and NULL hint does not
> > guarantee that when MAP_FIXED flag, important to this test, is given.
> > This patch also fixes this issue in remaining test.
> > 
> > Link: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3782
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
> 
> Wait, Rafael. But we will loose the test of mapping virtual address 0
> then. I though you would move testing of virtual address 0 into
> a separate testcase. I mean testing of first page was a positive
> side effect of the former Alexey's patch, so we definitely should
> keep it on x86 at least. Gimme some time I'll try to address it
> today evening or tomorrow. I think this way everybody will be
> happy: procfs get passed on arm32 and x86 will still have first
> page testing.

Ohh, my understanding was that this was going to be addressed in some other test, like what you said.. I did not understand you wanted me to create a test for it altogether, my bad. I can do it if you want, let me know, pls.

Thanks!