[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:49:46 +0900
From: park jinbum <jinb.park7@...il.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux@...linux.org.uk,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
labbott@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add arch-independent testcases for RODATA
Where is the best place for common test file in general??
kernel/rodata_test.c
include/rodata_test.h => Is it fine??
I can't see common file about rodata.
So I'm confused where the best place is.
2017. 1. 20. 오전 12:58에 "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>님이 작성:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:51:14PM +0900, Jinbum Park wrote:
> > This patch adds arch-independent testcases for RODATA.
> > Both x86 and x86_64 already have testcases for RODATA,
> > But they are arch-specific because using inline assembly directly.
> >
> > and cacheflush.h is not suitable location for rodata-test related things.
> > Since they were in cacheflush.h,
> > If someone change the state of CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA_TEST,
> > It cause overhead of kernel build.
> >
> > To solve above issue,
> > write arch-independent testcases and move it to shared location. (main.c)
>
> This is clearly a rework and move of the existing x86 test, and not the
> addition of a completely new test (see Arjan's comment about his credit
> being removed...).
>
> I would recommend that you turn this into a series that makes the x86
> code generic, then moves it out into a common location where it can be
> used by others. e.g.
>
> 1) make the test use put_user()
> 2) move the rodata_test() call and the prototype to a common location
> 3) move the test out to mm/ (with no changes to the file itself)
>
> Otherwise, comments below.
>
> > diff --git a/mm/rodata_test.c b/mm/rodata_test.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..d5b0504
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/mm/rodata_test.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +/*
> > + * rodata_test.c: functional test for mark_rodata_ro function
> > + *
> > + * (C) Copyright 2017 Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2
> > + * of the License.
> > + */
> > +#include <asm/uaccess.h>
> > +#include <asm/sections.h>
> > +
> > +const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3;
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rodata_test_data);
> > +
> > +void rodata_test(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long start, end, rodata_addr;
> > + int zero = 0;
> > +
> > + /* prepare test */
> > + rodata_addr = ((unsigned long)&rodata_test_data);
> > +
> > + /* test 1: read the value */
> > + /* If this test fails, some previous testrun has clobbered the
> state */
> > + if (!rodata_test_data) {
> > + pr_err("rodata_test: test 1 fails (start data)\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* test 2: write to the variable; this should fault */
> > + /*
> > + * This must be written in assembly to be able to catch the
> > + * exception that is supposed to happen in the correct case.
> > + *
> > + * So that put_user macro is used to write arch-independent
> assembly.
> > + */
> > + if (!put_user(zero, (int *)rodata_addr)) {
> > + pr_err("rodata_test: test data was not read only\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> As I mentioned in the original posting, you need to change to KERNEL_DS
> for the put_user.
>
> Russell's suggestion to use probe_kernel_write() is strictly better;
> please do that instead.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
