linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: only run constructor tests on nolibc

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

Message-ID: <b36e1946-fda8-4893-b081-7ac9b4933947@t-8ch.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:37:24 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: only run constructor tests on nolibc

Hi Willy,

On 2025-02-22 10:38:51+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:24:11PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2025-02-16 10:39:40+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:01:01PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > The nolibc testsuite can be run against other libcs to test for
> > > > interoperability. Some aspects of the constructor execution are not
> > > > standardized and musl does not provide all tested feature, for one it
> > > > does not provide arguments to the constructors, anymore?
> > > >
> > > > Skip the constructor tests on non-nolibc configurations.
> > > 
> > > I'm not much surprised, I've always avoided arguments in my use of
> > > constructors due to a lack of portability. However the patch disables
> > > all constructors tests, while I'm seeing that the linkage_test version
> > > does not make use of arguments, though there is an implied expectation
> > > that they're executed in declaration order, which is not granted.
> > 
> > The tests are written specifically to test for execution order.
> > While we can not rely on the order for other libcs, the idea was to
> > expect a given order for the nolibc implementation.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > > I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the tests more robust:
> > >   1) explicitly set linkage_test_constructor_test_value to zero in the
> > >      declaration, because here it's not set so we have no guarantee
> > >      (we're not in the kernel)
> > 
> > Ack.
> > 
> > >   2) only add values to check for cumulated values (e.g. |1 in const1,
> > >      |2 in const2) and verify that the result is properly 3
> > 
> > This would stop validating the order.
> 
> That was my purpose but OK I got it. Then there's another option which
> preserves the order and even gives history:
> 
>   __attribute__((constructor))
>   static void constructor1(void)
>   {
>       constructor_test_value = constructor_test_value * 0x10 + 1;
>   }
> 
>   __attribute__((constructor))
>   static void constructor2(void)
>   {
>       constructor_test_value = constructor_test_value * 0x10 + 2;
>   }
>  
> Then if executed in the right order, you'll find 0x12. If both
> are executed in any order, it will always be >= 0x10. If only one
> is executed, it will be < 0x10, and if none is executed, it's 0.

Sounds good! Do you want to write a patch?
It should also add the missing zero-initializion of
constructor_test_value.


Thomas