On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 11:24:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:00 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Once we can't manipulate the address limit, we also can't test what > > > happens when the manipulation is abused. > > > > Just remove these tests entirely. > > > > Once set_fs() doesn't exist on x86, the tests no longer make any sense > > what-so-ever, because test coverage will be basically zero. > > > > So don't make the code uglier just to maintain a fiction that > > something is tested when it isn't really. > > Sure fine with me unless Kees screams. To clarify: if any of x86, arm64, arm, powerpc, riscv, and s390 are using set_fs(), I want to keep this test. "ugly" is fine in lkdtm. :) -- Kees Cook
