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: <e8e6824c-61d4-48f9-8547-628bbbd3063a@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:00:10 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
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, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor
 `flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr` test

On 11/26/24 20:38, Paul Moore wrote:
> 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 :)
> 

kselftest patches usually go through subsystem trees because of the
merge problems you mentioned. I take them through kselftest tree
if subsystem maintainers want me to. Some do and I pick them up.

I pick up patches if I don't see response from subsystem maintainers.

thanks,
-- Shuah