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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e497c022-549f-4adf-83f8-8f8c54d7c998@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:28:56 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, 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, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal


On 9/9/24 23:24, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/8/24 23:16, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 9/7/24 01:29, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> 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! I guess there is no update required from my side, and you can
>> pull this series?
>>>
>
> I can pull this with x86v maintainer ack.
>
> Or to go through x86 tree:
>
> Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
>
>
Gentle ping, adding all x86 maintainers and the x86 list, in case they 
missed.