linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal

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: <6d026325-30cf-49aa-b3cb-da31a7713ce4@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 12:25:06 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mark.rutland@....com, ryan.roberts@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
	Anshuman.Khandual@....com, DeepakKumar.Mishra@....com,
	aneesh.kumar@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:26:02AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> On 9/4/24 22:35, Shuah Khan wrote:

> > So who does the backports whenevenr something changes? You are adding
> > work where as the automated process would just work without this
> > change. It doesn't matter if there is another test that changed
> > the name.

I thought git was supposed to have some ability to try to cope with
renames, though heuristic based?  It does seem to work sometimes.  TBH
I'm also not sure how frequent an issue backporting fixes to this one
test is going to be, it's had a couple of minor fixes for warnings in
the past few years and the last substantial update was in 2021.

> > 
> > If this new test has no relation to sigaltstack, then why are you
> > changing
> > and renaming the sigaltstack directory?

> Because the functionality I am testing is of signals, and signals are a
> superset
> of sigaltstack. Still, I can think of a compromise, if semantically you want

I do tend to agree here, it seems neater to merge things and from the
point of view of running the tests in CI it's nice to not have too many
tiny suites, they create runtime overhead.

> to
> consider the new test as not testing signals, but a specific syscall
> "sigaction"
> and its interaction with blocking of signals, how about naming the new
> directory "sigaction"?

That's not going to scale amazingly if we test any other aspects of
signals...  I'd just call it "signal" and if it's not possible to get
the merge done just leave the sigaltstack suite as it is.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)