linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 11/11] LSM: selftests for Linux Security Module syscalls

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2023 20:58:49 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     paul@...l-moore.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        john.johansen@...onical.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
        stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 11/11] LSM: selftests for Linux Security Module
 syscalls

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 11:14:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 8:01 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > These tests look good!
> >
> > I suggested other tests to add in my previous emails.
> 
> Some of the tests you've suggested will be very difficult to implement
> in the face of varying LSM configurations. I need to defer them until a
> later date.

Sure, some might be difficult, but some bound checks (e.g. extra flags)
should be doable.

> 
> > I'd suggest to re-run clang-format -i on them though.
> 
> I assume you're recommending a set of options to clang-format
> beyond just "-i". The result of clang-format -i by itself is
> horrific. 

I just ran clang -i (with the default kernel configuration, which is
taken into account by default). This just add four changes: the PROCATTR
define and three ASSERT*() calls, which are not too uggly IMO.