[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmzOFtrStXIgL2B1@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 07:50:14 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Joe Fradley <joefradley@...gle.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: Taint kernel if any tests run
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:00:19AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> KUnit tests are not supposed to run on production systems: they may do
> deliberately illegal things to trigger errors, and have security
> implications (assertions will often deliberately leak kernel addresses).
>
> Add a new taint type, TAINT_KUNIT to signal that a KUnit test has been
> run. This will be printed as 'N' (for kuNit, as K, U and T were already
> taken).
>
> This should discourage people from running KUnit tests on production
> systems, and to make it easier to tell if tests have been run
> accidentally (by loading the wrong configuration, etc.)
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists