linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] kselftest/arm64: Improvements to BTI tests on non-BTI systems

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]

Message-Id: <167354570430.3643775.1400892033904303107.b4-ty@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:48:40 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kselftest/arm64: Improvements to BTI tests on non-BTI systems

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 20:49:58 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> While looking at the BTI selftest results on a non-BTI system I noticed
> that not only are we printing invalid test numbers in that case, we're
> skipping running the tests entirely even though there's a well defined
> ABI we could be verifying and the code already knows what the results
> should be.
> 
> The first patch here is a fix to the reporting of test numbers when
> skipping, the second one just removes the skipping entirely in favour of
> a runtime check for what the result of a BTI binary should be.
> 
> [...]

Applied to arm64 (for-next/kselftest), thanks!

[1/2] kselftest/arm64: Fix test numbering when skipping tests
      https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/30792e7c18b6
[2/2] kselftest/arm64: Run BTI selftests on systems without BTI
      https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/1c3b614548b5

-- 
Catalin