[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more verbose
Hello Kees!

On 30.12.2019 21:37, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 05:54:16PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> Make the stack erasing test more verbose about the errors that it
>> can detect. BUG() in case of test failure is useful when the test
>> is running in a loop.
> Hi! I try to keep the "success" conditions for LKDTM tests to be a
> system exception, so doing "BUG" on a failure is actually against the
> design. So, really, a test harness needs to know to check dmesg for the
> results here. It almost looks like this check shouldn't live in LKDTM,

Hm, I see...

Let me explain why I've decided to use BUG() in case of a failure.

Once upon a time I noticed that the stack erasing test failed on a kernel with
KASAN enabled. It happened only once, and all my numerous efforts to reproduce
it failed. That's why I come with this patch. These changes provide additional
information and allow easy detection of a failure when you run the test in a loop.

Is stackleak test the only exception of this kind in LKDTM?

> but since it feels like other LKDTM tests, I'm happy to keep it there
> for now.

Do you mean that you will apply this patch?

> I'll resend my selftests series that adds a real test harness for all
> the LKDTM tests and CC you.


Maybe you also see how to improve the LKDTM infrastructure and remove this
inconsistency. Could you share your ideas?

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-30 23:21    [W:0.052 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site