Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/32, selftests: Add test_syscall_vdso test

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 10:00 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> +       printf("[SKIP]\tAT_SYSINFO not supplied, can't test\n");
>>> +       exit(0); /* this is not a test failure */
>>
>> Why is that not a test failure? It would mean it didn't actually test
>> anything, which seems like a failure to me.
>
> Are you objecting to comment wording, or to exiting with 0?
>
> I exit with 0 because no bug was detected.

It seemed like a test failure to me: you're failing open ("couldn't
configure test, I guess everything is okay") instead of failing closed
("couldn't configure test, something is terribly wrong").

If you can't locate how to make a syscall, then the test should fail,
IMO, since it was not possible to perform the test, so you don't know
if flags are being correctly handled across syscalls.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/