From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.codeweavers.com (mail.codeweavers.com [4.36.192.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C237863AE; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=4.36.192.163 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706926126; cv=none; b=b/MPN7mgH1RTc6YsjikGauH9MWnT3EnAWlnAp8XA8oB+rZuHcRc3FwJbNZk92wwTzKNBzzxf0hBimdkNSGBakyJI30nTZJtAP++iR4iFfkaEMQ+335mrOUtYsqYc6937OzrJkZC+AH3Xex7IKdRVcntX2wRb6WovtkDaK/pUojE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706926126; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lTPYk3uP/7Hs53WTMe3kG3GlscZKfUoKB1OWY+JmyB0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pJ8kf7aRPD83urbXbX37O6JVi2123EFQHXDXgd+hNJXYRqMPP7qcA/RtMY6F8ifDO3X51cOeXzofwK9KLX5M6ue+DNItrRvRY/sqsykVmhnq5H1MJmXHD1rwAyPOKKt4AzwN8M8jdwiD6bdgs75f68I/p4lTj0U+3mkwCEonZ6c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeweavers.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeweavers.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeweavers.com header.i=@codeweavers.com header.b=O0ul/Ycp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=4.36.192.163 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeweavers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeweavers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeweavers.com header.i=@codeweavers.com header.b="O0ul/Ycp" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codeweavers.com; s=s1; h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender; bh=BISZmxAxuhGywf5Psgs5bYnINGRpQwP9TOf62KALg00=; b=O0ul/Ycp0twiaFNrgQRhvbYf9U mKP/lf2M9IbeqHZdncibjWOB4y/TXBubUhfXY7OdwltC6Ug3kl5o2pLf//u6yBQA6483CQSOomTC+ mBnr4EC34Ta/fIuSLNMe/adQVSwhI0AXu8cbmuMlZ3FyJGk2WB6F+V2uJdhqMIdW+nRLuxNYGPRKg JR8Xppl2zWfoQDh93Q8l6NWMOLqJGLtRtmm2JmVdEgZtePWIAyUKxe3f8vxBOpOm8Z1lNVO7y/hG4 JrrbyUIOaWuSpu9shYaCHQwP3wVDVkvvF9SZQaQDkK32pj/k8lcGIqAf11Ols0E0qR90qTXbhNnPU UDUw5/NA==; Received: from cw137ip160.mn.codeweavers.com ([10.69.137.160] helo=camazotz.localnet) by mail.codeweavers.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rW5SJ-006FG8-2O; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:08:32 -0600 From: Elizabeth Figura To: Andi Kleen Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Almeida , Wolfram Sang , Arkadiusz Hiler , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 19/29] selftests: ntsync: Add some tests for NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY. Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:08:31 -0600 Message-ID: <8329156.T7Z3S40VBb@camazotz> In-Reply-To: <878r45khqc.fsf@linux.intel.com> References: <20240131021356.10322-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com> <20240131021356.10322-20-zfigura@codeweavers.com> <878r45khqc.fsf@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday, 31 January 2024 02:52:11 CST Andi Kleen wrote: > Elizabeth Figura writes: > > > +TEST(test_wait_any) > > +{ > > + struct ntsync_mutex_args mutex_args = {0}; > > + struct ntsync_wait_args wait_args = {0}; > > + struct ntsync_sem_args sem_args = {0}; > > + __u32 owner, index, count; > > + struct timespec timeout; > > + int objs[2], fd, ret; > > + > > + clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &timeout); > > + > > + fd = open("/dev/ntsync", O_CLOEXEC | O_RDONLY); > > + ASSERT_LE(0, fd); > > + > > + sem_args.count = 2; > > + sem_args.max = 3; > > + sem_args.sem = 0xdeadbeef; > > + ret = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_SEM, &sem_args); > > + EXPECT_EQ(0, ret); > > + EXPECT_NE(0xdeadbeef, sem_args.sem); > > + > > + mutex_args.owner = 0; > > + mutex_args.count = 0; > > + mutex_args.mutex = 0xdeadbeef; > > + ret = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_MUTEX, &mutex_args); > > + EXPECT_EQ(0, ret); > > + EXPECT_NE(0xdeadbeef, mutex_args.mutex); > > It seems your tests are missing test cases for exceeding any limits, > especially overflow/underflow cases. Since these are the most likely > for any security problems it would be good to have extra coverage here. > The fuzzers will hopefully hit it too. > > Also some stress testing with multiple threads would be useful. Thanks, I'll add these.