linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] stress-module: stress finit_module() and delete

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: <ZBtDSh6f+rWqFLtC@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:04:58 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     colin.i.king@...il.com, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pmladek@...e.com, david@...hat.com, petr.pavlu@...e.com,
        prarit@...hat.com
Cc:     christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, song@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        a.manzanares@...sung.com, fan.ni@...sung.com,
        vincent.fu@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] stress-module: stress finit_module() and
 delete_module()

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:23:50PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Example uses:
> 
> sudo ./stress-ng --module 1 --module-name xfs
> sudo ./stress-ng --module 1 --module-name xfs --module-sharedfd

The use case with --module 8192 was causing some errors from
stress-ng having unexpected bail out messages before ramp up.

> diff --git a/stress-module.c b/stress-module.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..cee581bd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/stress-module.c
> +			//snprintf(module_path, strlen(module_path), "%s/%s/%s",
> +			snprintf(module_path, PATH_MAX*2, "%s/%s/%s",
> +				 dirname_default_prefix,
> +				 u.release, module);
> +			ret = 0;

I forgot to remove this stray comment.

> +	/*
> +	 * We're not stressing the modules.dep --> module path lookup,
> +	 * just the finit_module() calls and so only do the lookup once.
> +	 */
> +	if (args->instance != 0) {
> +		if (!module_path_found)
> +			return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> +	}

So here was the reason for the complaints, Although changing this to
return just EXIT_NO_RESOURCE cures the warning, I don't think the
non instance 0 workers are doing anything then. Is that right Collin?

  Luis