linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: fix and consolidate d

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: <20251204043424.7512-1-electronlsr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  4 Dec 2025 12:34:22 +0800
From: Shuran Liu <electronlsr@...il.com>
To: song@...nel.org
Cc: andrii@...nel.org,
	ast@...nel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net,
	dxu@...uu.xyz,
	eddyz87@...il.com,
	electronlsr@...il.com,
	ftyg@...e.com,
	gplhust955@...il.com,
	haoluo@...gle.com,
	haoran.ni.cs@...il.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com,
	jolsa@...nel.org,
	kpsingh@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	mattbobrowski@...gle.com,
	mhiramat@...nel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	sdf@...ichev.me,
	shuah@...nel.org,
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: fix and consolidate d_path LSM regression test

Hi Song,

Thanks for the review.

> I don't get why we add this selftest here. It doesn't appear to be related to
> patch 1/2.

The regression that patch 1/2 fixes was originally hit by an LSM program
calling bpf_d_path() from the bprm_check_security hook. The new subtest is a
minimal reproducer for that scenario: without patch 1/2 the string comparison
never matches due to verifier's faulty optimization, and with patch 1/2 it 
behaves correctly.

> The paragraph above is not really necessary. Just curious, did some AI
> write it?

The paragraph was indeed generated with the help of an AI assistant, and I didn’t 
trim it down enough. I’ll drop it and keep the changelog focused and brief in v4.

> This {} block is not necessary.

I’ll remove that extra block in v4.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Best regards,
Shuran Liu