Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:36:15 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Timur Tabi <timur@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, roman.fietze@magna.com,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        akinobu.mita@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] lib/vsprintf: make-printk-non-secret printks all
 addresses as unhashed
Message-ID: <YBvAD/XBn6VoQ8F+@alley>
References: <20210202213633.755469-1-timur@kernel.org>
 <YBpyzxBYIYapHaDT@alley>
 <YBqlooegQgEfPG4T@alley>
 <19c1c17e-d0b3-326e-97ec-a4ec1ebee749@kernel.org>
 <202102031201.FFED9547D@keescook>
 <20210203152513.34492916@gandalf.local.home>
 <202102031234.9BF349F@keescook>
 <20210203154727.20946539@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210203154727.20946539@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 2021-02-03 15:47:27, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:35:07 -0800
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > > With a big notice that all pointers of unhashed, I don't think we need to
> > > print it failed when we expect it to fail.
> > > 
> > > If anything, skip the test and state:
> > > 
> > >   test_printf: hash test skipped because "make-printk-non-secret" is on the
> > >   command line.  
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm fine with "fail" or "skip". "pass" is mainly what I don't
> > like. :)
> 
> Is there any printing of the tests being done? Looks to me that the tests
> only print something if they fail. Thus "skip" and "pass" are basically the
> same (if "skip" is simply not to do the test).

It prints the total number of tests done. It should not count the
skipped tests.

We actually print a warning when crng is not initialized. In this
case, the test passes because we actually check the value and it
is an expected one.

> I mean, we could simply have:
> 
> 
>  static void __init
>  plain(void)
>  {
>  	int err;
>  
> +	if (debug_never_hash_pointers)
> +		return;

I am not 100% sure. But this might work. Just please print a warning
about the tests are skipped.

Best Regards,
Petr