Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, notify@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more
 verbose
Message-ID: <201912301034.5C04DC89@keescook>
References: <20191219145416.435508-1-alex.popov@linux.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191219145416.435508-1-alex.popov@linux.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 05:54:16PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Make the stack erasing test more verbose about the errors that it
> can detect. BUG() in case of test failure is useful when the test
> is running in a loop.

Hi! I try to keep the "success" conditions for LKDTM tests to be a
system exception, so doing "BUG" on a failure is actually against the
design. So, really, a test harness needs to know to check dmesg for the
results here. It almost looks like this check shouldn't live in LKDTM,
but since it feels like other LKDTM tests, I'm happy to keep it there
for now.

I'll resend my selftests series that adds a real test harness for all
the LKDTM tests and CC you.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook