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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA1AC282CB for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FCD20823 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727609AbfBEVVt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:21:49 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48048 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726062AbfBEVVt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:21:49 -0500 Received: from akpm3.svl.corp.google.com (unknown [104.133.8.65]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90126A6FF; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:21:46 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "Chang S. Bae" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Markus T Metzger , Ravi Shankar , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] taint: Introduce a new taint flag (insecure) Message-Id: <20190205132146.2e61b3df9e7be49e22b7d903@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20190201205319.15995-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <20190201205319.15995-2-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.6.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 18:42:29 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Chang S. Bae wrote: > > > > For testing (or root-only) purposes, the new flag will serve to tag the > > kernel taint accurately. > > > > When adding a new feature support, patches need to be incrementally > > applied and tested with temporal parameters. Currently, there is no flag > > for this usage. > > I think this should be reviewed by someone like akpm. akpm, for > background, this is part of an x86 patch series. If only part of the > series is applied, the kernel will be blatantly insecure (but still > functional and useful for testing and bisection), and this taint flag > will be set if this kernel is booted. With the whole series applied, > there are no users of the taint flag in the kernel. > > Do you think this is a good idea? What does "temporal parameters" mean? A complete description of this testing process would help. I sounds a bit strange. You mean it assumes that people will partially apply the series to test its functionality? That would be inconvenient. - Can the new and now-unused taint flag be removed again at end-of-series? - It would be a lot more convenient if we had some means of testing after the whole series is applied, on a permanent basis - some debugfs flag, perhaps?