linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] kunit: Add tests for faults

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:16:05 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, 
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 
	"Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>, Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, 
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Thara Gopinath <tgopinath@...rosoft.com>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, 
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>, Zahra Tarkhani <ztarkhani@...rosoft.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] kunit: Add tests for faults

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:28:18AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:04:09PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > The first test checks NULL pointer dereference and make sure it would
> > result as a failed test.
> > 
> > The second and third tests check that read-only data is indeed read-only
> > and trying to modify it would result as a failed test.
> > 
> > This kunit_x86_fault test suite is marked as skipped when run on a
> > non-x86 native architecture.  It is then skipped on UML because such
> > test would result to a kernel panic.
> > 
> > Tested with:
> > ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch x86_64 kunit_x86_fault
> > 
> > Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
> 
> If we can add some way to collect WARN/BUG output for examination, I
> could rewrite most of LKDTM in KUnit! I really like this!

Thanks!  About the WARN/BUG examination, I guess the easier way would be
to do in in user space by extending kunit_parser.py.

> 
> > ---
> >  lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> > index f7980ef236a3..57d8eff00c66 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >  #include <kunit/test-bug.h>
> >  
> >  #include <linux/device.h>
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <kunit/device.h>
> >  
> >  #include "string-stream.h"
> > @@ -109,6 +110,117 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_try_catch_test_suite = {
> >  	.test_cases = kunit_try_catch_test_cases,
> >  };
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> 
> Why is this x86 specific?

Because I didn't test on other architecture, and it looks it crashed on
arm64. :)

I'll test on arm64 and change this condition with !CONFIG_UML.

> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
>