Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] kselftests/arm64: add PAuth test for whether exec() changes keys

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:48:37AM +0100, Boyan Karatotev wrote:
> On 02/09/2020 18:08, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:04:49PM +0100, Boyan Karatotev wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * fork() does not change keys. Only exec() does so call a worker program.
> >> + * Its only job is to sign a value and report back the resutls
> >> + */
> >> +TEST(exec_unique_keys)
> >> +{
> > 
> > The kernel doesn't guarantee that keys are unique.
> > 
> > Can we present all the "unique keys" wording differently, say
> > 
> > 	exec_key_collision_likely()
> 
> I agree that this test's name is a bit out of place. I would rather have
> it named "exec_changed_keys" though.
> 
> > Otherwise people might infer from this test code that the keys are
> > supposed to be truly unique and start reporting bugs on the kernel.
> > 
> > I can't see an obvious security argument for unique keys (rather, the
> > keys just need to be "unique enough".  That's the job of
> > get_random_bytes().)
> 
> The "exec_unique_keys" test only checks that the keys changed after an
> exec() which I think the name change would reflect.
> 
> The thing with the "single_thread_unique_keys" test is that the kernel
> says the the keys will be random. Yes, there is no uniqueness guarantee
> but I'm not sure how to phrase it differently. There is some minuscule
> chance that the keys end up the same, but for this test I pretend this
> will not happen. Would changing up the comments and the failure message
> communicate this? Maybe substitute "unique" for "different" and say how
> many keys clashed?

Yes, something like that seems reasonable.

Cheers
---Dave