From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiggers3@gmail.com (Eric Biggers) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:43:04 -0700 Subject: [LTP] [lkp-robot] [KEYS] bdf7c0f8bf: ltp.add_key02.fail In-Reply-To: <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> References: <20170401213428.17097-1-ebiggers3@gmail.com> <20170417062641.GN31394@yexl-desktop> <20170417172955.GA31469@gmail.com> <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> Message-ID: <20170421044304.GB626@zzz> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org Hi Cyril, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:57:50PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > > > In my opinion this is a valid behavior, and the test is just weird; it's passing > > in *both* an unaddressable payload and an invalid description, so it's not clear > > which case it's meant to be testing. (Generally, if a syscall will fail for > > more than one reason, it's not guaranteed which error code you'll get.) > > That is quite common problem with LTP testcases. Do you care to send a > patch or should I fix that? > I'll plan to send a patch. Also, it looks like the testing that LTP does of add_key() is very sparse, so I'll try to extend it a bit. > > In any case, once we have a fix merged, it would be nice for there to be an ltp > > test added for the "NULL payload with nonzero length" case with one of the key > > types that crashed the kernel. > > Here as well, feel free to send a patch or at least point us to a > reproducer that could be turned into a testcase. > I'll plan to send a patch for that as well. Thanks, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Biggers Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:43:04 -0700 Subject: [LTP] [lkp-robot] [KEYS] bdf7c0f8bf: ltp.add_key02.fail In-Reply-To: <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> References: <20170401213428.17097-1-ebiggers3@gmail.com> <20170417062641.GN31394@yexl-desktop> <20170417172955.GA31469@gmail.com> <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> Message-ID: <20170421044304.GB626@zzz> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Cyril, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:57:50PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > > > In my opinion this is a valid behavior, and the test is just weird; it's passing > > in *both* an unaddressable payload and an invalid description, so it's not clear > > which case it's meant to be testing. (Generally, if a syscall will fail for > > more than one reason, it's not guaranteed which error code you'll get.) > > That is quite common problem with LTP testcases. Do you care to send a > patch or should I fix that? > I'll plan to send a patch. Also, it looks like the testing that LTP does of add_key() is very sparse, so I'll try to extend it a bit. > > In any case, once we have a fix merged, it would be nice for there to be an ltp > > test added for the "NULL payload with nonzero length" case with one of the key > > types that crashed the kernel. > > Here as well, feel free to send a patch or at least point us to a > reproducer that could be turned into a testcase. > I'll plan to send a patch for that as well. Thanks, Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0200628079250495141==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Eric Biggers To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [LTP] [lkp-robot] [KEYS] bdf7c0f8bf: ltp.add_key02.fail Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:43:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20170421044304.GB626@zzz> In-Reply-To: <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> List-Id: --===============0200628079250495141== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Cyril, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:57:50PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > = > > In my opinion this is a valid behavior, and the test is just weird; it'= s passing > > in *both* an unaddressable payload and an invalid description, so it's = not clear > > which case it's meant to be testing. (Generally, if a syscall will fai= l for > > more than one reason, it's not guaranteed which error code you'll get.) > = > That is quite common problem with LTP testcases. Do you care to send a > patch or should I fix that? > = I'll plan to send a patch. Also, it looks like the testing that LTP does of add_key() is very sparse, so I'll try to extend it a bit. > > In any case, once we have a fix merged, it would be nice for there to b= e an ltp > > test added for the "NULL payload with nonzero length" case with one of = the key > > types that crashed the kernel. > = > Here as well, feel free to send a patch or at least point us to a > reproducer that could be turned into a testcase. > = I'll plan to send a patch for that as well. Thanks, Eric --===============0200628079250495141==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1035156AbdDUEnN (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:43:13 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:36364 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1035039AbdDUEnI (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:43:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:43:04 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Cyril Hrubis Cc: kernel test robot , Eric Biggers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it Subject: Re: [LTP] [lkp-robot] [KEYS] bdf7c0f8bf: ltp.add_key02.fail Message-ID: <20170421044304.GB626@zzz> References: <20170401213428.17097-1-ebiggers3@gmail.com> <20170417062641.GN31394@yexl-desktop> <20170417172955.GA31469@gmail.com> <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170420125750.GD10246@rei.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Cyril, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:57:50PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > > > In my opinion this is a valid behavior, and the test is just weird; it's passing > > in *both* an unaddressable payload and an invalid description, so it's not clear > > which case it's meant to be testing. (Generally, if a syscall will fail for > > more than one reason, it's not guaranteed which error code you'll get.) > > That is quite common problem with LTP testcases. Do you care to send a > patch or should I fix that? > I'll plan to send a patch. Also, it looks like the testing that LTP does of add_key() is very sparse, so I'll try to extend it a bit. > > In any case, once we have a fix merged, it would be nice for there to be an ltp > > test added for the "NULL payload with nonzero length" case with one of the key > > types that crashed the kernel. > > Here as well, feel free to send a patch or at least point us to a > reproducer that could be turned into a testcase. > I'll plan to send a patch for that as well. Thanks, Eric