[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:29:47 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] lkdtm: Add test for XPFO
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:10:47PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com> wrote:
> > From: Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@....com>
> >
> > This test simply reads from userspace memory via the kernel's linear
> > map.
> >
> > hugepages is only supported on x86 right now, hence the ifdef.
>
> I'd prefer that the #ifdef is handled in the .c file. The result is
> that all architectures will have the XPFO_READ_USER_HUGE test, but it
> can just fail when not available. This means no changes are needed for
> lkdtm in the future and the test provides an actual test of hugepages
> coverage.
If failing tests is okay, I think we can just drop that hunk entirely.
Everything compiles fine, it just doesn't work :). I'll do that for
the next version.
Tycho
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.
