linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] fortify: Allow KUnit test to build without FORTIFY

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: <CAMuHMdUrxOEroHVUt7-mAnKSBjY=a-D3jr+XiAifuwv06Ob9Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:07:05 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Puyou Lu <puyou.lu@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] fortify: Allow KUnit test to build without FORTIFY

Hi Kees,

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 9:27 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> In order for CI systems to notice all the skipped tests related to
> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, allow the FORTIFY_SOURCE KUnit tests to build
> with or without CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

Thanks for your patch, which is now commit a9dc8d0442294b42
("fortify: Allow KUnit test to build without FORTIFY") upstream.

> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -2614,7 +2614,7 @@ config STACKINIT_KUNIT_TEST
>
>  config FORTIFY_KUNIT_TEST
>         tristate "Test fortified str*() and mem*() function internals at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> -       depends on KUNIT && FORTIFY_SOURCE
> +       depends on KUNIT

All other tests depend on the functionality they test.
Which makes sense, as you only want to test the functionality that is
available in the kernel you want to run.

>         default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>         help
>           Builds unit tests for checking internals of FORTIFY_SOURCE as used
> diff --git a/lib/fortify_kunit.c b/lib/fortify_kunit.c
> index c8c33cbaae9e..524132f33cf0 100644
> --- a/lib/fortify_kunit.c
> +++ b/lib/fortify_kunit.c

> @@ -307,6 +312,14 @@ DEFINE_ALLOC_SIZE_TEST_PAIR(kvmalloc)
>  } while (0)
>  DEFINE_ALLOC_SIZE_TEST_PAIR(devm_kmalloc)
>
> +static int fortify_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE))
> +               kunit_skip(test, "Not built with CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y");

I was greeted by this message, which wasn't that helpful, as
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE depends on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE,
which is not available yet on all architectures.

So I think the proper thing to do is to revert this patch.
Thanks!

> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static struct kunit_case fortify_test_cases[] = {
>         KUNIT_CASE(known_sizes_test),
>         KUNIT_CASE(control_flow_split_test),

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds