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

From: Alexander Popov
Date: Wed Jan 01 2020 - 18:30:28 EST

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.