Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more verbose | From | Alexander Popov <> | Date | Thu, 2 Jan 2020 02:26:39 +0300 |
| |
On 31.12.2019 01:46, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote: >> On 30.12.2019 21:37, Kees Cook wrote: >>> 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, >>> 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.
Kees, I think I see a solution.
Would you agree if I use dump_stack() instead of BUG() in case of test failure? That would provide enough info for debugging and would NOT break your design.
Thanks, Alexander
| |