linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for dynamic pointers parameters in kfuncs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 18:02:51 +0200
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, deso@...teo.net, dhowells@...hat.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jarkko@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        mingo@...hat.com, mykolal@...com, paul@...l-moore.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        serge@...lyn.com, shuah@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for dynamic pointers
 parameters in kfuncs

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 17:00, Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
>
> Add tests to ensure that only supported dynamic pointer types are accepted,
> that the passed argument is actually a dynamic pointer, that the passed
> argument is a pointer to the stack, and that bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature()
> correctly handles dynamic pointers with data set to NULL.
>
> The tests are currently in the deny list for s390x (JIT does not support
> calling kernel function).
>
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> ---

Just a minor nit: you could probably use invalid flags value other
than 1, since most likely the next valid flag value will be 1, which
will require changing this again. LGTM otherwise.

Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>