linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release

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: <3c6e5e78-aa49-4002-941f-af8fd2b81d10@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 15:01:18 +0530
From: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during
 __bio_release_pages()


On 5/24/24 12:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.24 08:43, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
>> David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>> dropping stable@...r.kernel.org
>>
>>> On 24.05.24 04:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:40:25 +0200 David Hildenbrand 
>>>> <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You have stable@...r.kernel.org in the mail headers, so I assume 
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> proposing this for backporting.  When doing this, please include
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the changelog footers and also include a Fixes: target.  I'm
>>>>>> assuming the suitable Fixes: target for this patch is 38b43539d64b?
>>>>>
>>>>> This adds a new selfest to make sure what was fixed (and 
>>>>> backported to
>>>>> stable) remains fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Sure.  But we should provide -stable maintainers guidance for "how far
>>>> back to go".  There isn't much point in backporting this into kernels
>>>> where it's known to fail!
>>>
>>> I'm probably missing something important.
>>>
>>> 1) It's a test that does not fall into the common stable kernels
>>> categories (see Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst).
>>>
>>> 2) If it fails in a kernel *it achieved its goal* of highlighting that
>>> something serious is broken.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still thinking that we want this in kernels which have 
>>>> 38b43539d64b?
>>>
>>> To hide that the other kernels are seriously broken and miss that fix?
>>>
>>> Really (1) this shouldn't be backported. I'm not even sure it should be
>>> a selftest (sounds more like a reproducer that we usually attach to
>>> commits, but that's too late). And if people care about backporting it,
>>> (2) you really want this test to succeed everywhere. Especially also to
>>> find kernels *without* 38b43539d64b
>>
>>
>> Sorry about the noise and cc'd to stable. I believe we don't need to
>> backport this test. The idea of adding a selftests was "also" to 
>> catch any
>> future bugs like this.
>
> Yes, for that purpose it's fine, but it has quite the "specific 
> reproducer taste". Having it as part of something that is prepared to 
> run against arbitrary kernels (which selftests frequently are not) to 
> detect known problems feels better.
>
> I have seen some hugetlbfs directio tests in LTP. If you think 
> selftest is not the correct place to add this test, we can drop this 
> test from selftests and add it to LTP.
>
> Thanks
> Donet
>
>>
>> I am unaware of any functional test suite where we could add such tests
>> like how filesystems have fstests. Hence the ideas was to add this in
>> selftests.
>
> LTP has quite some MM testcases in testcases/kernel/mem/. But it often 
> has a different focus (CVE or advanced feature/syscall tests). Now 
> that most things are CVEs ... it might not be a bad fit ... :)
>
>>
>> So this begs the question which I also asked few people at LSFMM,
>> Does mm has any mmfvt (mm functional verification tests)? Should we have
>> something like this? Was it tried in past?
>
> I think LTP is mostly the only "bigger" thing we have that is prepared 
> to run against arbitrary kernel versions.
>