From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/request_key03: new test for key instantiation races
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:13:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171102191348.GD23035@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171101105935.GA12823@rei.lan>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:59:35AM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > > You evaluate test twice: for add_key_pid and then for request_key_pid.
> > > This can lead to FAIL and PASS together. It's probably ok, it's just unusual for me.
> > > ./request_key03
> > > tst_test.c:958: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > request_key03.c:136: FAIL: kernel oops while updating key of type 'encrypted'
> > > request_key03.c:144: PASS: didn't crash while requesting key of type 'encrypted'
> > > ...
> > >
> >
> > Would it be better if there was just one PASS, and it is only executed if
> > neither of the FAILs was reached?
>
> Frankly I do not care that much in this case, the messages are pretty
> clear on what is happening.
>
> The only thing I find a bit confusing is that we run the test twice for
> different CVEs and if one of them fails, both of them are marked as
> failed. It would be cleaner to pass optional parameter to the test for
> which CVE we are looking for and fail the test only if the operation we
> are interested in caused the oops. And, of course, fail on any if the
> test was executed without it. Otherwise I'm fine with the code as it is.
>
Hmm, I guess I'll do that. It's not perfect because if you have the fix for
"CVE-2017-15951" but not the fix for "CVE-2017-15299", the kernel log will still
be spammed with WARN_ON()s in both cases. Well, that's what you get for having
unfixed bugs, I suppose...
Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-02 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-30 18:50 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/request_key03: new test for key instantiation races Eric Biggers
2017-10-31 8:25 ` Petr Vorel
2017-10-31 18:03 ` Eric Biggers
2017-11-01 10:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-11-02 19:13 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
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=20171102191348.GD23035@gmail.com \
--to=ebiggers3@gmail.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox