linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tools: Add new "test" taint to kernel-chktaint

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: <cb8b16a1-a7d6-1b04-c748-3f2d802b54e5@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 12:57:37 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Joe Fradley <joefradley@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: Add new "test" taint to kernel-chktaint

On 8/23/22 22:41, David Gow wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:19 PM Joe Fradley <joefradley@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Commit c272612cb4a2 ("kunit: Taint the kernel when KUnit tests are run")
>> added a new taint flag for when in-kernel tests run. This commit adds
>> recognition of this new flag in kernel-chktaint.
>>

What happens without this change? It isn't clear what this change is
fixing.

>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley <joefradley@...gle.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - based off of kselftest/kunit branch
>> - Added David's Reviewed-by tag
>>
> 
> This still looks good to me.
> 
> Unless anyone objects, I guess we'll take this through the KUnit
> branch (which, after all, is where the taint was originally added).
> I've added it to the list for 6.1, but it technically could be
> considered a fix for 6.0 as well.
> 

I can definitely take this for Linux 6.0 with additional information
on the problems seen without this change.

thanks,
-- Shuah