linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kunit: Support redirecting function calls

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: <f496b0c6-ad94-1837-1edd-3f6f9c00b927@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:44:27 -0700
From:   Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joe Fradley <joefradley@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kunit: Support redirecting function calls

+Joe Fradley who is also looking at KUnit with Android.

On 4/15/22 14:43, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On 4/4/22 13:13, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:22 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:13:12 +0800
>>> David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does either (or both) of these features sound useful, and is this
>>>> sort-of API the right model? (Personally, I think there's a reasonable
>>>> scope for both.) Is anything obviously missing or wrong? Do the names,
>>>> descriptions etc. make any sense?
>>>
>>> Obviously I'm biased toward the ftrace solution ;-)
>>
>> Personally, I like providing both - as long as we can keep the
>> interface the same.
>>
>> Ftrace is less visually invasive, but it is also less flexible in
>> capabilities, and requires substantial work to support on new
>> architectures.
> 
> The general feature looks useful to me. I'm not sure the ftrace based 
> API is worth it given it is only offering a visual improvement and has 
> some drawbacks compared to the other implementation (won't work with 
> inline functions, dependencies on other features). Livepatch is absent 
> on arm64 which mostly rules it out for my purposes (Android Generic 
> Kernel Image testing).
> 
> cheers,
> Steve