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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 22:39:36 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
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 09, 2018 at 04:48:49PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> 
> let me see if I got this right.. the premise for this test is to have *at least*
> 2 vmas, so we can check if the symlink for the mem range, describing the mapped
> area, is correct in procfs files, correct ? if yes, then why to have a totally
> duplicated test... just to check if mmap(0, ... MAP_FIXED ...) would work ?
> 
> Wouldn't exist a better place to have such test ? like in
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/mmap-null.c or something like it ?  genuine
> curiosity.. thinking i'm missing something about this test...

Ah, I happen to miss that they are identical except nil address. Then
true, vm/ looks like more suitable place for that. Do you happen to
know which exactly archs reserve first page (together with x86)?