Re: [PATCH] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown

[Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>]

Hi Greg,

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 03:38:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:11:15AM -0300, Raphael S. Carvalho wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:42 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 08:35:05PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > > To capture potential programming errors like mistakenly setting Global
> > > > bit on kernel page table entries, a selftest for meltdown is added.
> > > >
> > > > This selftest is based on Pavel Boldin's work at:
> > > > https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/cve/meltdown.c
> > > >
> > > > In addition to the existing test of reading kernel variable
> > > > saved_command_line from user space, one more test of reading user local
> > > > variable through kernel direct map address is added. For the existing
> > > > test(reading saved_command_line) to report a failure, both the high kernel
> > > > mapping and low kernel mapping have to be in leaked state; For the added
> > > > test(read local var), only low kernel mapping leak is enough to trigger
> > > > a test fail, so both tests are useful.
> > > >
> > > > Test results of 10 runs:
> > > >
> > > > On v6.1-rc8 with nopti kernel cmdline option:
> > > >
> > > > host              test_out_rate_1    test_out_rate_2
> > > > lkp-bdw-de1            50%               100%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d01            70%               100%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d02             0%                80%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d03            60%               100%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d04            20%               100%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d05            60%               100%
> > > > lkp-ivb-d01             0%                70%
> > > > lkp-kbl-d01           100%               100%
> > > > lkp-skl-d02           100%                90%
> > > > lkp-skl-d03            90%               100%
> > > > lkp-skl-d05            60%               100%
> > > > kbl-vm                100%                80%
> > > > 2 other machines have 0% rate for both tests.
> > > >
> > > > bdw=broadwell, hsw=haswell, ivb=ivybridge, etc.
> > > >
> > > > test_out_rate_1: test reports fail rate for the test of reading
> > > > saved_command_line from user space;
> > > > test_out_rate_2: test reports fail rate for the test of reading user
> > > > local variable through kernel direct map address in user space.
> > > >
> > > > On v5.19 without nopti cmdline option:
> > > > host              test_out_rate_2
> > > > lkp-bdw-de1            80%
> > > > lkp-hsw-4ex1           50%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d01            30%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d03            10%
> > > > lkp-hsw-d04            10%
> > > > lkp-kbl-d01            10%
> > > > kbl-vm                 80%
> > > > 7 other machines have 0% rate for test2.
> > > >
> > > > Also tested on an i386 VM with 512M memory and the test out rate is 100%
> > > > when adding nopti to kernel cmdline with v6.1-rc8.
> > > >
> > > > Main changes I made from Pavel Boldin's meltdown test are:
> > > > - Replace rdtscll() and clflush() with kernel's implementation;
> > > > - Reimplement find_symbol_in_file() to avoid bringing in LTP's library
> > > >   functions;
> > > > - Coding style changes: placing the function return type in the same
> > > >   line of the function.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Notable changes from RFC v3:
> > > > - Drop RFC tag;
> > > > - Change the base code from zlib licensed one to GPL licensed one.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but this still gets my NAK for the issues raised in previous
> > > reviews that are not addressed here for some reason :(
> > 
> > Greg, the selftest is no longer based on
> > https://github.com/IAIK/meltdown/blob/master/LICENSE, which is
> > originally zlib licensed. In this version, Aaron is basing the test on
> > https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/cve/meltdown.c,
> > which is indeed licensed with: GPL-2.0-or-later
> 
> That's not what the submission looks like, it looks a lot like the last
> one from the first defines and variables...
> 
> But hey, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer which is why I keep insisting
> that one from Intel actually read over this submission and sign-off on
> it to verify that they agree with all of this.

As Raphael has kindly clarified for me, I'm now taking GPL-2.0-or-later
licensed code and did some modifications and then released it as
GPL-2.0-or-later, I suppose this is legally a right thing to do for
anyone?

If you do not trust what I've done is what I've claimed, now the
original author Pavel Boldin has given the patch a "LGTM" tag, does that
address your concern?

Thanks,
Aaron