From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B909DC38145 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:05:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229889AbiIGQF3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:05:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36900 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229604AbiIGQFE (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:05:04 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x141.google.com (mail-il1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::141]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DDDBCCF6; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x141.google.com with SMTP id l6so7793906ilk.13; Wed, 07 Sep 2022 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=lt1bpJM6pHMY/em4ZNsqZVuYS7ky1YDSS0Zv0T/sQCI=; b=jFrMQnAJyokhbea+zJXMZUcpgYdRpW6ftt5X8yDsUmyx2A4f77acUmlMItitO1FogO p0bEzPpuqSiuwlKsN8tybJJDylxM59F++Xmxy4P5f+e6/5m4LATaktIUyoghbJvS/faC CDzGmAW/QicbE8j6KYbsmSE/J19AMses1La/f2fg44SktusCjr2xneuPqsjpMAfBYCHn UPS3zWSx7vbgypW+5wJGwA5biGU+ZHb3LlbUMkkmWNyZuckczS+nu1IFmU/tfN0xIuBc 7vbypb3c16FPIyTdjo2byYrd5Ce7ap9CY+J4YhWRm52GoiEDxedVnkj+Cfx53cDUSmrj CPoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=lt1bpJM6pHMY/em4ZNsqZVuYS7ky1YDSS0Zv0T/sQCI=; b=ze3Uc7zSJMaPjpVWvF1ztWN3mPjlJO61CQcR8BRJFtNNlhnAQtmIwo0phdrZCDxVtn LiS4aTiGt9tyM7YL8gVaKhD8QP8IdK1EYdh5WtkWaZh3v3EcS1tnMNCWCZmUN8gJXu5C Wn25edvZdPa6QkErAB3ctgO8KskxcYsWH8tamQl7BOUF32xXuYKzpiGCVbh9w8lz16fy B1aQfQITjb4S9VKOXhlvTmumfsLao4vk+rfFm+7jnT+qvE4wNb5z8jCU3LfMeBFoXIza jBxeJ2VH/00qa7nkCy2YbKwayzB+4F7vdzIQKj69R8d2o76BS5r2YjsQRwf7AdNfZXnZ b2Dg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1Z2lQomAOkdqp/Uqxp8PGSCWRDaMtjOLtJVj6OZ1xJk815Ycd0 OLWteix1QeUpVx3OdqUJ73FGvlqouVHQNc42U0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5D0yaJMaMJfVkyP7yo0j3n7J4Q2NxUTHD4GglycqC1kGl3Kap+m8RkpO7wuD2gzZZFsAnPWsgP2IfD+vK5xbs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1489:b0:2f1:a985:853 with SMTP id n9-20020a056e02148900b002f1a9850853mr2320169ilk.68.1662566607972; Wed, 07 Sep 2022 09:03:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220907145939.489784-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> In-Reply-To: <20220907145939.489784-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 18:02:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for dynamic pointers parameters in kfuncs To: Roberto Sassu Cc: andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, deso@posteo.net, dhowells@redhat.com, haoluo@google.com, jarkko@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, jolsa@kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, mingo@redhat.com, mykolal@fb.com, paul@paul-moore.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, sdf@google.com, serge@hallyn.com, shuah@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 17:00, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > From: Roberto Sassu > > Add tests to ensure that only supported dynamic pointer types are accepted, > that the passed argument is actually a dynamic pointer, that the passed > argument is a pointer to the stack, and that bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature() > correctly handles dynamic pointers with data set to NULL. > > The tests are currently in the deny list for s390x (JIT does not support > calling kernel function). > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu > --- Just a minor nit: you could probably use invalid flags value other than 1, since most likely the next valid flag value will be 1, which will require changing this again. LGTM otherwise. Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi