linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vmalloc: add test driver to analyse vmalloc allocator

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, 15 Nov 2018 13:57:50 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vmalloc: add test driver to analyse vmalloc
 allocator

On Thu 15-11-18 00:46:42, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:39:57AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 14-11-18 15:00:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_SELFTEST EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> > >
> > > then write a script which checks the tree for usages of the
> > > thus-tagged symbols outside tools/testing and lib/ (?)
> > 
> > and then yell at people? We can try it out of course. The namespace
> > would be quite clear and we could document the supported usage pattern.
> > We also want to make EXPORT_SYMBOL_SELFTEST conditional. EXPORTs are not
> > free and we do not want to add them if the whole testing infrastructure
> > is disabled (assuming there is a global one for that).
> 
> How about adding
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_VMALLOC_TEST
> int run_internal_vmalloc_tests(void)
> {
> ...
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(run_internal_vmalloc_tests);
> #endif
> 
> to vmalloc.c?  That would also allow calling functions which are marked
> as static, not just functions which aren't exported to modules.

Yes that would be easier but do we want to pollute the normal code with
testing? This looks messy to me.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs