linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] selftests/proc: test PROCMAP_QUERY ioctl while vma is concurrently modified

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEkJ+muZsYozmPWcPQDzeQEf8srsh1KuQB804rs8P+n9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 09:43:29 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, 
	vbabka@...e.cz, peterx@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	mhocko@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, adobriyan@...il.com, 
	brauner@...nel.org, josef@...icpanda.com, yebin10@...wei.com, 
	linux@...ssschuh.net, willy@...radead.org, osalvador@...e.de, 
	andrii@...nel.org, ryan.roberts@....com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, 
	tjmercier@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, aha310510@...il.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] selftests/proc: test PROCMAP_QUERY ioctl while vma
 is concurrently modified

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:40 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 12:04:25PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 16.07.25 05:05, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > Extend /proc/pid/maps tearing test to verify PROCMAP_QUERY ioctl operation
> > > correctness while the vma is being concurrently modified.
> > >
> >
> > Wonder if that should be moved out of this series as well. Of course, it
> > doesn't hurt to have this test already in.
>
> Yeah that's move this out actually, in this series it's not actually
> testing anything _pertinent_.
>
> Though all the tests are designed to pass _before_ as well as after
> obviously, so (as David says) no harm to have it here BUT - it's confusing
> and a bit weird :P
>
> So yeah let's just move this test over to the respun procmap query series.

Ok.

>
> BTW Suren - slightly unrelated but - the syzbot report I did the analysis
> on is super super reproducable, so if you want to play around with
> different solutions, using that should make it some quick iterations.

Yes, I'm using that test routinely now.

>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >
>
> Cheers, Lorenzo