linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/mm: Report unique test names for each cow test

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: <4676a010-a977-4d5a-b42a-edbbea7d356d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 16:15:42 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/mm: Report unique test names for each
 cow test

On 03.06.25 15:21, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:51:45PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 27.05.25 18:04, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>>    		ret = mprotect(mem, size, PROT_READ);
>>> -		ret |= mprotect(mem, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
>>>    		if (ret) {
> 
>> Not sure if that change is really required: if the second mprotect succeeds,
>> errno should not be updated. At least if my memory is correct :)
> 
>> Same applies to similar cases below.
> 
> I thought about checking to see if that was guaranteed to be the case,
> then I thought that if that wasn't clear to me right now without
> checking it probably also wasn't going to be obvious to future readers
> so it was better to just write something clear.  Previously we didn't
> report errno so it didn't matter.
> 
>>>    	} else {
>>> -		ksft_test_result_fail("Leak from parent into child\n");
> 
>> Same here and in other cases below (I probably didn't catch all).
> 
>> We should log that somehow to indicate what exactly is going wrong, likely
>> using ksft_print_msg().
> 
> Can you send a patch with the logging that you think would be clear
> please? 
 > I dropped these because they just seemed to be reporting the> overall 
point of the test, unlike the cases where we ran into some error
> during the setup and didn't actually manage to perform the test we were
> trying to do.  Perhaps the tests should be renamed.

ksft_print_msg("Leak from parent into child");

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb