linux-kernel - Re: Linux 6.8-rc6

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: <8403d8e3-c8ac-476b-8b8e-2c8b6ed8f464@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 06:17:20 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.8-rc6

On 2/26/24 23:41, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Günter,
> 
> CC Kees
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:52 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> stackinit
>> ---------
>>
>> Seen with m68k:q800 emulation.
>>
>>      # test_char_array_zero: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/stackinit_kunit.c:333
>>      Expected stackinit_range_contains(fill_start, fill_size, target_start, target_size) to be true, but is false
>> stack fill missed target!? (fill 16 wide, target offset by -12)
>>
>>      # test_char_array_none: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/stackinit_kunit.c:343
>>      Expected stackinit_range_contains(fill_start, fill_size, target_start, target_size) to be true, but is false
>> stack fill missed target!? (fill 16 wide, target offset by -12)
>>
>> Report:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/a0d10d50-2720-4ecd-a2c6-c2c5e5aeee65@roeck-us.net/
> 
> I don't think these have ever succeeded before, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMuHMdX_g1tbiUL9PUQdqaegrEzCNN3GtbSvSBFYAL4TzvstFg@mail.gmail.com
> 
>> I suspect this may be caused by the test assuming that stack growth is
>> downward, but I don't really understand the test well enough to be sure.
>> I'll disable this set of tests for m68k going forward, so I am not going
>> to report the problem again in the future.
> 
> On m68k, the stack does grow downward.

Sorry, I meant to say upward, but apparently I was wrong.

> AFAIK only parisc has a stack that grows upward.
> 
.. and the tests work there, so that isn't the problem.

As mentioned, I stopped running those tests on m68k.

Thanks,
Guenter