linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.8 574/633] selftests/bpf: Fix overflow tests to reflect iter size increase

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: <20201028220826.GB87646@sasha-vm>
Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:08:26 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.8 574/633] selftests/bpf: Fix overflow tests to reflect
 iter size increase

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:42:10PM +0000, Alan Maguire wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>> From: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit eb58bbf2e5c7917aa30bf8818761f26bbeeb2290 ]
>>
>> bpf iter size increase to PAGE_SIZE << 3 means overflow tests assuming
>> page size need to be bumped also.
>>
>
>Alexei can correct me if I've got this wrong but I don't believe
>it's a stable backport candidate.
>
>This selftests change should only be relevant when the BPF iterator
>size has been bumped up as it was in
>
>af65320 bpf: Bump iter seq size to support BTF representation of large
>data structures
>
>...so I don't _think_ this commit belongs in stable unless the
>above commit is backported also (and unless I'm missing something
>I don't see a burning reason to do that currently).
>
>Backporting this alone will likely induce bpf test failures.
>Apologies if the "Fix" in the title was misleading; it should
>probably have been "Update" to reflect the fact it's not fixing
>an existing bug but rather updating the test to operate correctly
>in the context of other changes in the for-next patch series
>it was part of.

I'll drop it, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha