netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: selftests: cleanup RLIMIT

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: <CALOAHbB7jUTNUb7QESpjU=w3xgBOY=oJL=DdsMc4zpW=YKF1qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:13:50 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: selftests: cleanup RLIMIT_MEMLOCK

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:13 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:58 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 19, 2022, at 11:08 PM, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since we have alread switched to memcg-based memory accouting and control,
> > > we don't need RLIMIT_MEMLOCK any more.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is still used in bpftool and libbpf, but it may be useful
> > > for backward compatibility, so I don't cleanup them.
> >
> > Hi Yafang!
> >
> > As I remember, we haven’t cleaned selftests up with the same logic: it’s nice to be able to run the same version of tests on older kernels.
> >
>
> It should be fine, at least for test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32.
> Libbpf now does this automatically if running in "libbpf 1.0" mode.
>
> Yafang, please make sure that all the test binaries you are cleaning
> up have libbpf_set_strict_mode(LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL) (test_progs does
> already). You might need to clean up some SEC() definitions, in case
> we still missed some non-conforming ones, though.
>

Thanks for the suggestion. I will do it.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang