Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lkdtm/stackleak: Make the stack erasing test more verbose

[Alexander Popov]

On 03.01.2020 01:03, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 02:26:39AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> On 31.12.2019 01:46, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>>> On 30.12.2019 21:37, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean that you will apply this patch?
>>>
>>> Sorry for my confusing reply! I meant that I don't want to apply the
>>> patch, but I'm find to leave the stackleak check in LKDTM.
>>
>> Kees, I think I see a solution.
>>
>> Would you agree if I use dump_stack() instead of BUG() in case of test failure?
>> That would provide enough info for debugging and would NOT break your design.
> 
> I would be fine with that, yes! :)

Thank you! I'll send the v2 shortly.

Best regards,
Alexander