Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Sun, 1 May 2022 11:24:28 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: Taint kernel if any tests run
Message-ID: <Ym7QXOMK3fLQ+b6t@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20220429043913.626647-1-davidgow@google.com>
 <20220430030019.803481-1-davidgow@google.com>
 <Ym7P7mCoMiQq99EM@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ym7P7mCoMiQq99EM@bombadil.infradead.org>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 01, 2022 at 11:22:38AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:00:19AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > KUnit tests are not supposed to run on production systems: they may do
> > deliberately illegal things to trigger errors, and have security
> > implications (assertions will often deliberately leak kernel addresses).
> > 
> > Add a new taint type, TAINT_KUNIT to signal that a KUnit test has been
> > run. This will be printed as 'N' (for kuNit, as K, U and T were already
> > taken).
> > 
> > This should discourage people from running KUnit tests on production
> > systems, and to make it easier to tell if tests have been run
> > accidentally (by loading the wrong configuration, etc.)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> 
> There is no reason to distinguish kunit from selftests if the result is
> the same: really make the kernel try really insane stupid things which
> may crash it or put it into a bad state.
> 
> So no, this should be renamed to "TEST_BREAK" as I think outside of
> selftest and kunit we may grow the kernel to do stupid things outside
> of that domain and this gives us the flexilibilty to use that in other
> places as well.
> 
> It begs the question if we *should* allow userspace to volunterally say
> "hey, we are doing really insane things, brace yourself." Why ? Well
> because selftest has tons of modules. We either then define a macro
> that adds the taint for them and wrap the module declaration for it,
> or we expose a syctl to let userspace volunteer to opt-in to seggest
> we are about to try something stupid with the kernel including loading
> some dangeerous modules which may not have macros which taint the kernel.
> That would let selftest taint on *any* selftest. Because we can run all
> selftests or run one selftest.
> 
> Then, if such sysctl is exposed, maybe we should then also use this for
> example for blktests, fstests, fio tests, etc.

For got to expand to fsdevel and linux-block.

  Luis