linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] selftests: kmod: Add tests for merging same-name module load requests

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: <Y1giEusr0/sGNrGC@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:51:14 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     pmladek@...e.com, david@...hat.com, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] selftests: kmod: Add tests for merging same-name
 module load requests

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 02:30:31PM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kmod/init_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kmod/init_module.c
> @@ -525,6 +662,8 @@ list_tests()
>  	echo "0011 x $(get_test_count 0011) - test completely disabling module autoloading"
>  	echo "0012 x $(get_test_count 0012) - test /proc/modules address visibility under CAP_SYSLOG"
>  	echo "0013 x $(get_test_count 0013) - test /sys/module/*/sections/* visibility under CAP_SYSLOG"
> +	echo "0014 x $(get_test_count 0014) - test handling of parallel loads, success case"
> +	echo "0015 x $(get_test_count 0015) - test handling of parallel loads, init returning error"

Good stuff!

So test 0015 mimics the error reported by Prarit Bhargava through
commit 6e6de3dee51a ("kernel/module.c: Only return -EEXIST for modules
that have finished loading")? If so it would be good to document that
here.

Also, this patch should go first, with the ALL_TESTS variable set to
disable the tests which are known to fail, so to demonstrate the *new*
issues as they are failing and then your fix first and then you enable
that test afterwards.

If 6e6de3dee51a introduced another regression which is not covered
by the tests we'd add it, and fix on top of it as a stepping stone
to prove / send to stable.

  Luis