linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/nolibc: add testcase for pipe

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:41:36 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
To:     Yuan Tan <tanyuan@...ylab.org>
Cc:     falcon@...ylab.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, w@....eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/nolibc: add testcase for pipe

On 2023-07-31 20:35:28+0800, Yuan Tan wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 08:10 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2023-07-31 13:51:00+0800, Yuan Tan wrote:
> > > Add a testcase of pipe that child process sends message to parent
> > > process.
> > 
> > Thinking about it some more:
> > 
> > What's the advantage of going via a child process?
> > The pipe should work the same within the same process.
> > 
> 
> The pipe is commonly used for process communication, and I think as a
> test case it is supposed to cover the most common scenarios.

The testcase is supposed to cover the code of nolibc.
It should be the *minimal* amount of code to be reasonable sure that the
code in nolibc does the correct thing.
If pipe() returns a value that behaves like a pipe I see no reason to
doubt it will also survive fork().

Validating that would mean testing the kernel and not nolibc.
For the kernel there are different testsuites.

Less code means less work for everyone involved, now and in the future.