linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor `flags_overset_lsm_set_self

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: <CAHC9VhTJERn54qNDDOwNrJ09VWrmq5Qn+sPQV__LyeEUgSi5pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:38:39 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Amit Vadhavana <av2082000@...il.com>, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, 
	casey@...aufler-ca.com, shuah@...nel.org, ricardo@...liere.net, 
	linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor `flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr`
 test

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:25 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/24 11:28, Amit Vadhavana wrote:
> > - Remove unnecessary `tctx` variable, use `ctx` directly.
> > - Simplified code with no functional changes.
> >
>
> I would rephrase the short to simply say Remove unused variable,
> as refactor implies more extensive changes than what this patch
> is actually doing.
>
> Please write complete sentences instead of bullet points in the
> change log.
>
> How did you find this problem? Do include the details on how
> in the change log.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Vadhavana <av2082000@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c | 7 +++----
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
> > index 66dec47e3ca3..732e89fe99c0 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
> > @@ -56,16 +56,15 @@ TEST(flags_zero_lsm_set_self_attr)
> >   TEST(flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr)
> >   {
> >       const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
> > -     char *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
> > +     struct lsm_ctx *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
>
> Why not name this tctx and avoid changes to the ASSERT_EQs
> below?
>
> >       __u32 size = page_size;
> > -     struct lsm_ctx *tctx = (struct lsm_ctx *)ctx;
> >
> >       ASSERT_NE(NULL, ctx);
> >       if (attr_lsm_count()) {
> > -             ASSERT_LE(1, lsm_get_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT, tctx, &size,
> > +             ASSERT_LE(1, lsm_get_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT, ctx, &size,
> >                                              0));
> >       }
> > -     ASSERT_EQ(-1, lsm_set_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT | LSM_ATTR_PREV, tctx,
> > +     ASSERT_EQ(-1, lsm_set_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT | LSM_ATTR_PREV, ctx,
> >                                       size, 0));
> >
> >       free(ctx);
>
> You have to change this tctx for sure.
>
> With these changes:
>
> Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
>
> Paul, James,
>
> Please do let me know if you would me to take this through
> kselftest tree.

Amit has already posted a v2 with the requested changes, but I wanted
to get back to you on this even if this patch is outdated ... Shuah,
what is your preference for things like this?  My general policy is
that patches only affecting one subsystem tree should be taken by the
associated subsystem to minimize merge headaches and other ugliness,
however, the kselftest is an interesting subsystem in that it relies
so heavily on others that I'm not sure my policy makes as much sense
here :)

-- 
paul-moore.com