From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] lkdtm: disable set_fs-based tests for !CONFIG_SET_FS
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:09:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200902080911.GA26677@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202009011156.0F49882@keescook>
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:57:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 11:24:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:00 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Once we can't manipulate the address limit, we also can't test what
> > > > happens when the manipulation is abused.
> > >
> > > Just remove these tests entirely.
> > >
> > > Once set_fs() doesn't exist on x86, the tests no longer make any sense
> > > what-so-ever, because test coverage will be basically zero.
> > >
> > > So don't make the code uglier just to maintain a fiction that
> > > something is tested when it isn't really.
> >
> > Sure fine with me unless Kees screams.
>
> To clarify: if any of x86, arm64, arm, powerpc, riscv, and s390 are
> using set_fs(), I want to keep this test. "ugly" is fine in lkdtm. :)
And Linus wants them gone entirely, so I'll need a stage fight between
the two of you. At least for this merge window I'm only planning on
x86 and power, plus maybe riscv if I get the work done in time. Although
helper from the maintainers would be welcome. s390 has a driver that
still uses set_fs that will need some surgery, although it shouldn't
be too bad, but arm will be a piece of work. Unless I get help it will
take a while.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] lkdtm: disable set_fs-based tests for !CONFIG_SET_FS
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:09:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200902080911.GA26677@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202009011156.0F49882@keescook>
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:57:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 11:24:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:00 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Once we can't manipulate the address limit, we also can't test what
> > > > happens when the manipulation is abused.
> > >
> > > Just remove these tests entirely.
> > >
> > > Once set_fs() doesn't exist on x86, the tests no longer make any sense
> > > what-so-ever, because test coverage will be basically zero.
> > >
> > > So don't make the code uglier just to maintain a fiction that
> > > something is tested when it isn't really.
> >
> > Sure fine with me unless Kees screams.
>
> To clarify: if any of x86, arm64, arm, powerpc, riscv, and s390 are
> using set_fs(), I want to keep this test. "ugly" is fine in lkdtm. :)
And Linus wants them gone entirely, so I'll need a stage fight between
the two of you. At least for this merge window I'm only planning on
x86 and power, plus maybe riscv if I get the work done in time. Although
helper from the maintainers would be welcome. s390 has a driver that
still uses set_fs that will need some surgery, although it shouldn't
be too bad, but arm will be a piece of work. Unless I get help it will
take a while.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-02 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-27 15:00 remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc v2 Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 01/10] fs: don't allow kernel reads and writes without iter ops Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:58 ` David Laight
2020-08-29 9:23 ` 'Christoph Hellwig'
2020-08-29 9:23 ` 'Christoph Hellwig'
2020-09-01 6:48 ` [fs] ef30fb3c60: kernel write not supported for file /sys/kernel/softlockup_panic kernel test robot
2020-09-01 6:48 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-01 6:48 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-01 7:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-01 7:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-01 7:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 02/10] fs: don't allow splice read/write without explicit ops Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 9:29 ` David Howells
2020-10-27 9:29 ` David Howells
2020-10-27 9:51 ` David Howells
2020-10-27 9:51 ` David Howells
2020-10-27 9:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 9:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 10:38 ` David Howells
2020-10-27 10:38 ` David Howells
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 03/10] uaccess: add infrastructure for kernel builds with set_fs() Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 04/10] test_bitmap: skip user bitmap tests for !CONFIG_SET_FS Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 05/10] lkdtm: disable set_fs-based " Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-27 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-29 9:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-29 9:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-01 18:52 ` Kees Cook
2020-09-01 18:52 ` Kees Cook
2020-09-01 18:57 ` Kees Cook
2020-09-01 18:57 ` Kees Cook
2020-09-02 8:09 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-09-02 8:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86: move PAGE_OFFSET, TASK_SIZE & friends to page_{32,64}_types.h Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86: move PAGE_OFFSET, TASK_SIZE & friends to page_{32, 64}_types.h Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 07/10] x86: make TASK_SIZE_MAX usable from assembly code Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 08/10] x86: remove address space overrides using set_fs() Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-27 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-29 9:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-29 9:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 09/10] powerpc: use non-set_fs based maccess routines Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` [PATCH 10/10] powerpc: remove address space overrides using set_fs() Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-27 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-02 6:15 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 12:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-02 12:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-02 13:13 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 13:13 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 13:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 13:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 13:51 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 13:51 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 14:12 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 14:12 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 15:02 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 15:02 ` David Laight
2020-09-02 15:17 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 15:17 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-02 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-03 7:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-03 7:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-03 7:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-03 7:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-03 8:55 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-03 8:55 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-03 7:20 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-03 7:20 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-08-27 15:31 ` remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc v2 Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-01 17:13 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-01 17:25 ` Al Viro
2020-09-01 17:25 ` Al Viro
2020-09-01 17:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-01 17:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-01 18:39 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-01 18:39 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-01 19:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-01 19:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-09-02 8:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-02 8:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200902080911.GA26677@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.