linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] selftests/mm: add UFFDIO

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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:46:23 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        lokeshgidra@...gle.com, peterx@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
        hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, zhangpeng362@...wei.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        kaleshsingh@...gle.com, ngeoffray@...gle.com, jdduke@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] selftests/mm: add UFFDIO_MOVE ioctl test

On 12/11/23 08:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
...
> That's an open question: do we want to be able to build selftests 
> against any host headers, and not the in-tree headers that have to be 
> manually installed and dirty the git tree?
> 
> One obvious drawbacks is that we'll have to deal with all that using a 
> bunch of #ifdef, and the tests that will be built+run will depend on the 
> host headers.
> 
> Especially the letter is relevant I think: Our upstream testing won't be 
> able to build+run tests that rely on new upstream features. But that's 
> what some key benefit of these selftests, and being able to run them 
> automatically on a bunch of different combinations upstream.
> 
> Further, the tests are closely related to the given kernel version, they 
> are not some completely separate tests.
> 
> 
> Moving the the (MM?) selftests to a separate repository would make the 
> decision easier: just like in QEMU etc, we'd simply pull in a headers 
> update and only build against these archived headers.
> 
> So I see the options:
> 
> (1) Rely on installing the proper in-tree headers. Build will fail if
>      that is not happening.
> 
> (2) Make the tests build with any host headers.
> 
> (3) Regularly archive the required headers in the selftest directory
>      like external projects like QEMU do.

Or (4) Hack in little ifdef snippets, into the selftests, like we used
to do. Peter Zijlstra seems to be asking for this, if I understand his
(much) earlier comments about this.



thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA