From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C62027B32B for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770168985; cv=none; b=Yd/fmbgwvLonoQN8dddY6vUPmYPLOELPxyzwFRuM2FmxtN8hkdRH2D85s71gyqCK8i1qiObKW/wdgzE7wPrfE6cTBEFfIKiQaT+2Yw66jiFIZdhe2ybX6AVYLwjgDvkZRIww7xxHeQsuMtpbTXByikZUk3zSZh1lRBkN6SWKpFk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770168985; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3J1yG40l4xBx53q7czVEncWZi7wToG/HailPa7lrU/A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YaRseD/sM+hvtJluumgz0A3hRxT3eDdfalJIHgHTmPu1D5jWG+nIJMj5WGuzWAPPCf4+zSFD87zOIPawgwPBMuVS5x3ZLNYE/RaOXObBr8nzWVD08e1wyouphl6tMOLpAX/GhZiMRzX1ZXRlU4FgEOAvV/QO5nR36ev1P+Hme5E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UOZ9O05y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="UOZ9O05y" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE427C19422; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:36:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1770168985; bh=3J1yG40l4xBx53q7czVEncWZi7wToG/HailPa7lrU/A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UOZ9O05yRahAFd2bgWZYrBRJsnzpJuJfsbkWYAEtgU9gPknO0DYIpP9niURbRZ9eu uh3AvXzm8h6Ap9ral2bT1IiwwWOGBRSCH1E1UM22TdYaHnpDa9IZpctqEdjAXY3ens 7v0jD3JJ8PrUddiQSxnEJt/R4WHVCKD+xBP5qkCfHOgixJw4DDnvM9cMt+73Vcmt2x 2tyiEqnLJbTMo6ZxMdGxPCXgc0BB2vltvFUr4310QBJJaGtLt5mazdjHbBl4ETKe5H Z2HpZGNUGjObOR4D4uPMVf5aq1hKdSwKOBexOgmPR+ObI4xTbfeL4PnTE5ytjSfdWD XAVxwJusoB0Dw== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 17:36:24 -0800 From: Kees Cook To: Titouan Ameline de Cadeville Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/tests: exec: drop duplicate bprm_stack_limits test vectors Message-ID: <202602031722.72C5EBFF15@keescook> References: <20260203175950.43710-1-titouan.ameline@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260203175950.43710-1-titouan.ameline@gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 06:59:50PM +0100, Titouan Ameline de Cadeville wrote: > Remove duplicate entries from the bprm_stack_limits KUnit test vector > table. The duplicates do not add coverage and only increase test size. Hm, yes, these are pointless duplicates. It makes me think I typo'd something here. > Signed-off-by: Titouan Ameline de Cadeville Regardless: Fixes: 60371f43e56b ("exec: Add KUnit test for bprm_stack_limits()") > --- > fs/tests/exec_kunit.c | 6 ------ > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/tests/exec_kunit.c b/fs/tests/exec_kunit.c > index 7c77d039680b..f412d1a0f6bb 100644 > --- a/fs/tests/exec_kunit.c > +++ b/fs/tests/exec_kunit.c > @@ -87,9 +87,6 @@ static const struct bprm_stack_limits_result bprm_stack_limits_results[] = { > .argc = 0, .envc = ARG_MAX / sizeof(void *) - 1 }, > .expected_argmin = ULONG_MAX - sizeof(void *) }, > /* Raising rlim_stack / 4 to _STK_LIM / 4 * 3 will see more space. */ > - { { .p = ULONG_MAX, .rlim_stack.rlim_cur = 4 * (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3), > - .argc = 0, .envc = 0 }, > - .expected_argmin = ULONG_MAX - (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3) + sizeof(void *) }, > { { .p = ULONG_MAX, .rlim_stack.rlim_cur = 4 * (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3), > .argc = 0, .envc = 0 }, > .expected_argmin = ULONG_MAX - (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3) + sizeof(void *) }, Looking at the surrounding tests and trying to jog my memory, I think I meant to have differing envc values here, but that turned out not to be useful: I wanted to test the impact of rlim_stack.rlim_cur, not argc/envc here. > @@ -103,9 +100,6 @@ static const struct bprm_stack_limits_result bprm_stack_limits_results[] = { > { { .p = ULONG_MAX, .rlim_stack.rlim_cur = 4 * _STK_LIM, > .argc = 0, .envc = 0 }, > .expected_argmin = ULONG_MAX - (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3) + sizeof(void *) }, > - { { .p = ULONG_MAX, .rlim_stack.rlim_cur = 4 * _STK_LIM, > - .argc = 0, .envc = 0 }, > - .expected_argmin = ULONG_MAX - (_STK_LIM / 4 * 3) + sizeof(void *) }, Same here. Reviewed-by: Kees Cook -- Kees Cook