netdev - Re: [net-next v4 3/3] selftests/sysctl: add sysctl macro 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]

Date:   Sun, 1 May 2022 11:31:47 +0800
From:   Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Akhmat Karakotov <hmukos@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 3/3] selftests/sysctl: add sysctl macro test

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:58 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:01:41 +0800 xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com wrote:
> >  static int __init test_sysctl_init(void)
> >  {
> > +     test_data.match_int[0] = *(int *)SYSCTL_ZERO,
> > +     test_data.match_int[1] = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE,
> > +     test_data.match_int[2] = *(int *)SYSCTL_TWO,
> > +     test_data.match_int[3] = *(int *)SYSCTL_THREE,
> > +     test_data.match_int[4] = *(int *)SYSCTL_FOUR,
> > +     test_data.match_int[5] = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE_HUNDRED,
> > +     test_data.match_int[6] = *(int *)SYSCTL_TWO_HUNDRED,
> > +     test_data.match_int[7] = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE_THOUSAND,
> > +     test_data.match_int[8] = *(int *)SYSCTL_THREE_THOUSAND,
> > +     test_data.match_int[9] = *(int *)SYSCTL_INT_MAX,
> > +     test_data.match_int[10] = *(int *)SYSCTL_MAXOLDUID,
> > +     test_data.match_int[11] = *(int *)SYSCTL_NEG_ONE,
>
> > +     local VALUES=(0 1 2 3 4 100 200 1000 3000 $INT_MAX 65535 -1)
>
> How does this test work? Am I reading it right that it checks if this
> bash array is in sync with the kernel code?
This patch tries to avoid SYSCTL_XXX not mapping the values we hoped,
when introducing the new SYSCTL_YYY.
for example:
SYSCTL_TWO, we hope it is 2, so we check it in userspace.
> I'd be better if we were checking the values of the constants against
> literals / defines.
Hi Jakub, I think this patch checks the values of the constants
against defines. But I should make the codes more readable

 static int __init test_sysctl_init(void)
 {
+       int i;
+
+       struct {
+               int defined;
+               int wanted;
+       } match_int[] = {
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_ZERO,        .wanted = 0},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE,         .wanted = 1},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_TWO,         .wanted = 2},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_THREE,       .wanted = 3},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_FOUR,        .wanted = 4},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE_HUNDRED, .wanted = 100},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_TWO_HUNDRED, .wanted = 200},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_ONE_THOUSAND, .wanted = 1000},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_THREE_THOUSAND, .wanted = 3000},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_INT_MAX,     .wanted = INT_MAX},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_MAXOLDUID,   .wanted = 65535},
+               {.defined = *(int *)SYSCTL_NEG_ONE,     .wanted = -1},
+       };
+
+       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(match_int); i++)
+               if (match_int[i].defined != match_int[i].wanted)
+                       match_int_ok = 0;
+




--
Best regards, Tonghao