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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fcdbd8bc-9986-497e-8de4-86d3e619ca73@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:59:28 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, shuah@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mark.rutland@....com,
 ryan.roberts@....com, broonie@...nel.org, 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,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal

On 9/4/24 23:56, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> On 9/4/24 22:35, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 9/3/24 22:52, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/4/24 03:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/24 10:29, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/27/24 17:16, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/27/24 17:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/22/24 06:14, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rename sigaltstack to generic signal directory, to allow adding more
>>>>>>>> signal tests in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry - I think I mentioned I don't like this test renamed. Why are you sending
>>>>>>> this rename still included in the patch series?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not renaming the test, just the directory. The directory name
>>>>>> is changed to signal, and I have retained the name of the test -
>>>>>> sas.c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gentle ping: I guess there was a misunderstanding; in v5, I was
>>>>> also changing the name of the test, to which you objected, and
>>>>> I agreed. But, we need to change the name of the directory since
>>>>> the new test has no relation to the current directory name,
>>>>> "sigaltstack". The patch description explains that the directory
>>>>> should be generically named.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. You are no longer changing the test name. You are still
>>>> changing the directory name. The problem I mentioned stays the
>>>> same. Any fixes to the existing tests in this directory can no
>>>> longer auto applied to stables releases.
>>>
>>> I understand your point, but commit baa489fabd01 (selftests/vm: rename
>>> selftests/vm to selftests/mm) is also present. That was a lot bigger change;
>>> sigaltstack contains just one test currently, whose fixes possibly would have
>>> to be backported, so I guess it should not be that much of a big problem?
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>> Other than the desire to rename the directory to generic, what
>>>> other value does this change bring?
>>>
>>> Do you have an alternative suggestion as to where I should put my new test then;
>>> I do not see what is the value of creating another directory to just include
>>> my test. This will unnecessarily clutter the selftests/ directory with
>>> directories containing single tests. And, putting this in "sigaltstack" is just
>>> wrong since this test has no relation with sigaltstack.
>>>
>>
>> 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 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"?
>> Adding a new directory is much better
>> than going down a path that is more confusing and adding backport overhead.
>>

Okay - they are related except that you view signalstack as a subset
of signals. I saw Mark's response as well saying sigaction isn't
a good name for this.

Rename usually wipe out git history as well based on what have seen
in the past.

My main concern is backports. Considering sigstack hasn't changed
2021 (as Mark's email), let's rename it.

I am reluctantly agreeing to the rename as it seems to make sense
in this case.

thanks,
-- Shuah