linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use /dev/userfaultfd

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: <CAJHvVcj=pL8y_b_urq8QvtDvRRMmjgGkquQM6xhxWwiajNrhKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:16:02 -0700
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linuxkselftest <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use /dev/userfaultfd

Thanks for looking Andrew. And, fair criticism.

In keeping with the status quo, I'm thinking of just adding a new
command-line argument which toggles between the two modes.

But, if I'm honest, it's starting to feel like the test has way too
many arguments... I'm tempted to refactor the test to use the
kselftest framework [1], get rid of all these command line arguments,
and just always test everything. But, this seems like a big and
perhaps controversial refactor, so I may take it up after this
series...

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:29:42 -0700 Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > Prefer this new interface, but if using it fails for any reason just
> > fall back to using userfaultfd(2) as before.
>
> This seems a poor idea - the old interface will henceforth be untested.
>
> Why not tweak the code to test both interfaces?