Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Dec 2019 14:46:50 -0800 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more verbose |
| |
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote: > 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?
Some of the refcount_t tests don't trigger a WARN(), and there are related benchmarking tests that don't either.
> > 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?
Sorry for my confusing reply! I meant that I don't want to apply the patch, but I'm find to leave the stackleak check in LKDTM.
However, if you want to split it out into its own test, I think that should be fine; similar to lib/test_user_copy.c if you want it to stand alone and have its own semantics, etc.
> > I'll resend my selftests series that adds a real test harness for all > > the LKDTM tests and CC you. > > Ok! > > Maybe you also see how to improve the LKDTM infrastructure and remove this > inconsistency. Could you share your ideas?
I don't, unfortunately. The real "difficulty" is that some of the crashes are architecture-specific (e.g. how MMU traps are reported across different architectures), so it's not too easy to consolidate the reporting. As a result, I've taken to trying to do best-effort on the test running side. I'll send what I've got...
-- Kees Cook
| |