All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1] security/dirtyc0w_shmem: Fix remaining cases where UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM is absent
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:16:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6184eaf7-aee4-669c-aa20-0485c1474e47@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y4CjI7S/MHnQa7ex@pevik>

On 25.11.22 12:12, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
>> When UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM is not defined, we still have to make the
>> checkpoint happy, otherwise our parent process will run into a timeout.
>> Further, we have to test if UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM is really returned by
>> the UFFD_API ioctl: if the kernel knows about the feature but doesn't
>> support it, it will be masked off.
> 
>> Reported-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
>> Cc: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>> Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   .../dirtyc0w_shmem/dirtyc0w_shmem_child.c        | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/dirtyc0w_shmem/dirtyc0w_shmem_child.c b/testcases/kernel/security/dirtyc0w_shmem/dirtyc0w_shmem_child.c
>> index cb2e9df0c..c117c6f39 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/security/dirtyc0w_shmem/dirtyc0w_shmem_child.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/dirtyc0w_shmem/dirtyc0w_shmem_child.c
>> @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@
>>   #include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
>>   #endif
> 
>> -#ifdef UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM
> Shouldn't be the check and TST_TEST_TCONF() actually be in dirtyc0w_shmem.c?
> I overlooked that, but IMHO test does not make sense at all if
> UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM not defined, right?
> 
> Also Martin noted that ("The parent process should not even fork() when
> UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM is not defined in config.h.").
> 

I tried that first, but then we can still run into the runtime absence 
of UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM. Checking that also in the parent resulted 
in some IMHO unpleasant code while I worked on that.

This is certainly the easiest approach, because we still have to make 
the child program compile either way.

Anyhow, I'll do whatever you decide, because I want to cross this off my 
list. So any guidance on how to complete this would be appreciated.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-25 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-25 10:52 [LTP] [PATCH v1] security/dirtyc0w_shmem: Fix remaining cases where UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM is absent David Hildenbrand
2022-11-25 11:12 ` Petr Vorel
2022-11-25 11:16   ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2022-11-25 12:34     ` Petr Vorel
2022-11-25 11:20 ` Martin Doucha
2022-11-25 12:19   ` David Hildenbrand

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=6184eaf7-aee4-669c-aa20-0485c1474e47@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=pvorel@suse.cz \
    /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.