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  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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 18:44:45 +0000
From:   Nikita Sobolev <Nikita.Sobolev@...opsys.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
        "Eugeniy Paltsev" <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] selftests/tpm: Fix runtime error

Hi, Jarkko Sakkinen, all!

Thank you for your notes about commit and sorry for not copying the message to you!

There is definitely unwanted line of code in the commit.
After deleting that one, introduced changes work fine.

There is a hardcoded usage of /dev/tpm2 in the kernel selftest. And if there is no such device - test fails.
I believe this is not a behavior, that we expect. Test should be skipped in such case, should it?
That is what my commit makes.

So, after deleting unwanted line of code and making cosmetic changes (new description + deleting
excess newline character), can commit be submitted again?

You also mentioned reviewed-by nor tested-by tags in your message. Who should make these tags?

P.S.
Also there was a question: why do I declare exit code with a constant instead of just exit 4.
I chose this style because it is used in other kernel selftests for such kind of checks.
It is proper to follow common style rules. Should I argument this decision in commit message? 

-Nikita

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 5:11 PM
> To: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org; linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org; Jarkko
> Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>; Nikita Sobolev
> <sobolev@...opsys.com>; Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>; open
> list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] selftests/tpm: Fix runtime error
> 
> There is some random clutter in test_smoke.sh:
> 
>   ./test_smoke.sh: line 3: self.flags: command not found
> 
> Remove it.
> 
> Fixes: b32694cd0724 ("Kernel selftests: tpm2: check for tpm support")
> Cc: Nikita Sobolev <Nikita.Sobolev@...opsys.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> I rely on these tests and this was not even cc'd to me and obviously was
> untested. There is neither reviewed-by nor tested-by tags in the commit (not
> to mention some cosmetic things like short summary formatted wrong and the
> extra newline character).
> 
> Please do not do this next time. Thanks.
>  tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/test_smoke.sh | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/test_smoke.sh
> b/tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/test_smoke.sh
> index b630c7b5950a..e55d3e400666 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/test_smoke.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/test_smoke.sh
> @@ -1,11 +1,9 @@
>  #!/bin/bash
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) -self.flags = flags
> 
>  # Kselftest framework requirement - SKIP code is 4.
>  ksft_skip=4
> 
> -
>  if [ -f /dev/tpm0 ] ; then
>  	python -m unittest -v tpm2_tests.SmokeTest
>  	python -m unittest -v tpm2_tests.AsyncTest
> --
> 2.25.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists