lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more verbose
From
Date
On 31.12.2019 01:46, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> On 30.12.2019 21:37, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Hi! I try to keep the "success" conditions for LKDTM tests to be a
>>> system exception, so doing "BUG" on a failure is actually against the
>>> design. So, really, a test harness needs to know to check dmesg for the
>>> results here. It almost looks like this check shouldn't live in LKDTM,
>>> but since it feels like other LKDTM tests, I'm happy to keep it there
>>> for now.
>>
>> Do you mean that you will apply this patch?
>
> Sorry for my confusing reply! I meant that I don't want to apply the
> patch, but I'm find to leave the stackleak check in LKDTM.

Kees, I think I see a solution.

Would you agree if I use dump_stack() instead of BUG() in case of test failure?
That would provide enough info for debugging and would NOT break your design.

Thanks,
Alexander

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-02 00:26    [W:0.047 / U:2.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site