linux-kernel - [PATCH v8 30/38] kselftest/arm64: Allow signals tests to specify an expected si

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: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:25:56 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 
 Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, 
 Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 
 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
 "Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 
 Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, 
 Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, 
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, 
 Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
 Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann@...aro.org>, 
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
 kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v8 30/38] kselftest/arm64: Allow signals tests to specify
 an expected si_code

Currently we ignore si_code unless the expected signal is a SIGSEGV, in
which case we enforce it being SEGV_ACCERR. Allow test cases to specify
exactly which si_code should be generated so we can validate this, and
test for other segfault codes.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
---
 .../testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h  |  4 +++
 .../selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c    | 29 ++++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
index 7ada43688c02..ee75a2c25ce7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
@@ -71,6 +71,10 @@ struct tdescr {
 	 * Zero when no signal is expected on success
 	 */
 	int			sig_ok;
+	/*
+	 * expected si_code for sig_ok, or 0 to not check
+	 */
+	int			sig_ok_code;
 	/* signum expected on unsupported CPU features. */
 	int			sig_unsupp;
 	/* a timeout in second for test completion */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
index 89ef95c1af0e..63deca32b0df 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
@@ -143,16 +143,25 @@ static bool handle_signal_ok(struct tdescr *td,
 			"current->token ZEROED...test is probably broken!\n");
 		abort();
 	}
-	/*
-	 * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones generated by Kernel itself
-	 * via arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort check anyway, and
-	 * the si_code check may need to change if this aspect of the kernel
-	 * ABI changes.
-	 */
-	if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) {
-		fprintf(stdout,
-			"si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n");
-		abort();
+	if (td->sig_ok_code) {
+		if (si->si_code != td->sig_ok_code) {
+			fprintf(stdout, "si_code is %d not %d\n",
+				si->si_code, td->sig_ok_code);
+			abort();
+		}
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones
+		 * generated by Kernel itself via
+		 * arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort
+		 * check anyway, and the si_code check may need to
+		 * change if this aspect of the kernel ABI changes.
+		 */
+		if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) {
+			fprintf(stdout,
+				"si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n");
+			abort();
+		}
 	}
 	td->pass = 1;
 	/*

-- 
2.30.2