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 BA807D3B99D for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF263DB203 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:02:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) (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 10E9E3D947B for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:01:53 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.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=chrubis@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-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 106B664F6AC for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:01:52 +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 24C5421176; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:01:52 +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 1215C13890; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:01:52 +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 7x9yA+DiRWc+BAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:01:52 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:02:03 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: 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: <20241126143542.GA77885@pevik> 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: 24C5421176 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-5.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: , 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! > > 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. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp