From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, "Kees Cook" <kees@outflux.net>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andy@kernel.org>,
"Cezary Rojewski" <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>,
"Puyou Lu" <puyou.lu@gmail.com>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
"Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Alexander Potapenko" <glider@google.com>,
"Zhaoyang Huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
"Liam Howlett" <liam.howlett@oracle.com>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Rasmus Villemoes" <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
"Yury Norov" <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
"Sander Vanheule" <sander@svanheule.net>,
"Eric Biggers" <ebiggers@google.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
"Andrey Konovalov" <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
"José Expósito" <jose.exposito89@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] fortify: Allow KUnit test to build without FORTIFY
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:09:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <642f5130.170a0220.2a780.356a@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGS_qxpk8WsPjN702nhQcEsK4yzzXZCc5n5cTVMSpwnVhCHSvA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 06:22:25PM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:08 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > In order for CI systems to notice all the skipped tests related to
> > CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, allow the FORTIFY_SOURCE KUnit tests to build
> > with or without CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if this warrants a deeper discussion.
> It's a lot easier to have tests get disabled by kconfig if their deps
> aren't met.
Yeah, I wasn't sure where to put the "kunit defconfig" settings.
"default.config" didn't seem to actually work as I was expecting. The
real "problem" I'm solving is that FORTIFY_SOURCE isn't in the standard
defconfig.
> If there's pressure to have them compiled and just get marked skipped,
> that sounds like that could be annoying.
> Esp. in the cases where more code needs to be put behind
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MY_DEP
> <test helpers, etc>
> #endif
>
> But I have a suggestion below to simplify this a bit
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@outflux.net>
> > ---
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 +-
> > lib/fortify_kunit.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index c8b379e2e9ad..d48a5f4b471e 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -2614,7 +2614,7 @@ config STACKINIT_KUNIT_TEST
> >
> > config FORTIFY_KUNIT_TEST
> > tristate "Test fortified str*() and mem*() function internals at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > - depends on KUNIT && FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > + depends on KUNIT
> > default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > help
> > Builds unit tests for checking internals of FORTIFY_SOURCE as used
> > diff --git a/lib/fortify_kunit.c b/lib/fortify_kunit.c
> > index c8c33cbaae9e..d054fc20a7d5 100644
> > --- a/lib/fortify_kunit.c
> > +++ b/lib/fortify_kunit.c
> > @@ -25,8 +25,21 @@ static const char array_of_10[] = "this is 10";
> > static const char *ptr_of_11 = "this is 11!";
> > static char array_unknown[] = "compiler thinks I might change";
> >
> > +/* Handle being built without CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE */
> > +#ifndef __compiletime_strlen
> > +# define __compiletime_strlen __builtin_strlen
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#define skip_without_fortify() \
> > +do { \
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE)) \
> > + kunit_skip(test, "Not built with CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y"); \
> > +} while (0)
>
> Note: you can add an `init` function to the suite and skip the tests there.
>
> static void fortify_init(struct kunit *test) {
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE))
> kunit_skip(test, "Not built with CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y");
> }
>
> ...
> static struct kunit_suite fortify_test_suite = {
> .name = "fortify",
> + .init = fortify_init,
> .test_cases = fortify_test_cases,
> };
>
> That way we don't have to add it to each test case.
Ah! Excellent. I didn't realize it would have that effect. I will do
that. :)
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-06 23:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-06 0:01 [PATCH 0/9] fortify: Add KUnit tests for runtime overflows Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 1/9] kunit: tool: Enable CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE under UML Kees Cook
2023-04-06 3:10 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 2/9] fortify: Allow KUnit test to build without FORTIFY Kees Cook
2023-04-06 1:22 ` Daniel Latypov
2023-04-06 23:09 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 3/9] string: Add Kunit tests for strcat() family Kees Cook
2023-04-06 9:11 ` Alexander Potapenko
2023-04-06 23:07 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-12 12:34 ` Alexander Potapenko
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 4/9] fortify: Add protection for strlcat() Kees Cook
2023-04-06 13:32 ` Miguel Ojeda
2023-04-06 22:58 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 5/9] fortify: strcat: Move definition to use fortified strlcat() Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 6/9] fortify: Split reporting and avoid passing string pointer Kees Cook
2023-04-06 10:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-04-06 22:57 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-07 8:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-04-07 19:49 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-06 13:44 ` Miguel Ojeda
2023-04-06 22:54 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-06 15:23 ` Alexander Lobakin
2023-04-06 22:54 ` Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 7/9] fortify: Provide KUnit counters for failure testing Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 8/9] fortify: Add KUnit tests for runtime overflows Kees Cook
2023-04-06 0:02 ` [PATCH 9/9] fortify: Improve buffer overflow reporting Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=642f5130.170a0220.2a780.356a@mx.google.com \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=cezary.rojewski@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=dlatypov@google.com \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=jose.exposito89@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@outflux.net \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=puyou.lu@gmail.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=sander@svanheule.net \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome