[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202004060856.6BC17C5C99@keescook>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:58:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Ivan Teterevkov <ivan.teterevkov@...anix.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel/sysctl: support setting sysctl parameters
from kernel command line
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:08:36PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Yes. Doing an internal extension isn't testing the actual code.
>
> But it would.
>
> [...]
> > I don't think anything is needed for this series. It can be boot tested
> > manually.
>
> Why test it manually when it could be tested automatically with a new kconfig?
So, my impression is that adding code to the internals to test the
internals isn't a valid test (or at least makes it fragile) because the
test would depend on the changes to the internals (or at least depend on
non-default non-production CONFIGs).
Can you send a patch for what you think this should look like? Perhaps
I'm not correctly imagining what you're describing?
Regardless of testing, I think this series is ready for -mm.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists