From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EE4AD65535 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9268B3DB2F3 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:48:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20AD13D91BB for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:47:52 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85588232F18 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:47:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B93392117E; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B14013890; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id zDrRH8cJRmfpOwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:47:51 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:47:50 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20241126174750.GA100857@pevik> References: <20240521105348.126316-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20240521105348.126316-6-pvorel@suse.cz> <20241126143542.GA77885@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B93392117E X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 5/5] setsockopt0[38]: Use tst_is_compat_mode() X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > > I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, > > > either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions... > > Looking into this old patch, do we relax the conditions or use .needs_abi_bits = 32? > > setsockopt08.c prints only TINFO, thus !tst_is_compat_mode() would have to be > > used for the check. > I guess that doing: > if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > tst_res(TINFO, "The vunerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > Is a sensible approach. It does not hurt to run the test either way but > it makes it clear that the original CVE it's not going to be reproduced > without 32-bit compat mode. +1. I modified that and dared to merge with your RBT (9dacb1ac27). Thanks for your review! Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp