linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] selftests/vm: Add protection_keys tests to run

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: <b63d3373-0a42-afdc-1f03-875301e9b6c8@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:53:24 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Shetty, Kalpana" <kalpana.shetty@....com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] selftests/vm: Add protection_keys tests to run_vmtests

On 6/15/22 6:04 AM, Shetty, Kalpana wrote:
> 
> On 6/14/2022 10:50 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 6/14/22 6:15 AM, Shetty, Kalpana wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/14/2022 3:14 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/22 3:07 AM, Kalpana Shetty wrote:
>>>>> Adding "protected_keys" tests to "run_vmtests.sh" would help out to run all VM related tests
>>>>> from a single shell script.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense - can you explain why you can't just run
>>>> protection_keys_32 without checks? 
>>>
>>> Yes; we can run protection_keys_32 without check.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why are you checking for VADDR64? 
>>>
>>> The check is added to ensure if the system is in 64-bit mode before executing 64-bit binary.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Okay. protection_keys_32 will only be built on 32-bit system and.
>> protection_keys_64 on 64-bit system.
> 
> On 64-bit system, we get both 32-bit and 64-bit binary.
> 
> 
>>
>> Won't it be better to check if binary exists and run either _32 or
>> _64 instead of checking for VADDR64?
> 
> makes sense;
> 
> In this case on 64-bit platform we would run both _32 and _64 and this should be fine.
> 
> 

Okay - send v3 with the change.

thanks,
-- Shuah