linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO

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: <4xfrphsdl7p2aqu6w7diow5shsnjq263lhfudi4yiqxvkvcmkq@ti2hcdbkthok>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:21:24 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Konstantin Shkolnyy <kshk@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO_RCVLOWAT
 parameter

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 10:00:47AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>On 10/24/2024 03:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>Other setsockopt() in the tests where we use unsigned long are
>>SO_VM_SOCKETS_* but they are expected to be unsigned, so we should be
>>fine.
>
>It's actually not "signed vs unsigned", but a "size + endianess" problem.

I see, thanks!

>
>Also, looking at SO_VM_SOCKETS_* code in the test, it uses unsigned 
>long and size_t which (I believe) will both shrink to 4 bytes on 32-bit 
>machines, while the corresponding kernel code in af_vsock.c uses u64.  
>It looks to me that this kernel code will be unhappy to receive just 4 
>bytes when it expects 8.
>

In include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h we talk about unsigned long long for 
SO_VM_SOCKETS_*, that IIUC also on 32-bit machines should be on 64bit, 
so the kernel code looks okay, but the tests should be improved, right?

Thanks,
Stefano