Hi Kees,
On 05/08/15 21:26, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:48 AM, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> These patches extend the test_user_copy test module to handle lots more
>> cases of user accessors which architectures can override separately, and
>> in particular those which are important for checking the MIPS Enhanced
>> Virtual Addressing (EVA) implementations, which need to handle
>> overlapping user and kernel address spaces, with special instructions
>> for accessing user address space from kernel mode.
>>
>> - Checking that kernel pointers are accepted when user address limit is
>> set to KERNEL_DS, as done by the kernel when it internally invokes
>> system calls with kernel pointers.
>> - Checking of the unchecked accessors (which don't call access_ok()).
>> Some of the tests are special cased for EVA at the moment which has
>> stricter hardware guarantees for bad user accesses than other
>> configurations.
>> - Checking of other sets of user accessors, including the inatomic user
>> copies, copy_in_user, clear_user, the user string accessors, and the
>> user checksum functions, all of which need special handling in arch
>> code with EVA.
>>
>> Tested on MIPS with and without EVA, and on x86_64.
>>
>> James Hogan (7):
>> test_user_copy: Check legit kernel accesses
>> test_user_copy: Check unchecked accessors
>> test_user_copy: Check __clear_user()/clear_user()
>> test_user_copy: Check __copy_in_user()/copy_in_user()
>> test_user_copy: Check __copy_{to,from}_user_inatomic()
>> test_user_copy: Check user string accessors
>> test_user_copy: Check user checksum functions
>>
>> lib/test_user_copy.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+)
>>
>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ooooh! Nice! This is great, thank you. :) Great to hear it helped find
> a bug too. :)
>
> I'm wondering if we need to macro-ize any of these. Probably not, but
> it just feels like there's a lot of repeated stuff now. But I think
> it's a bit of an illusion since each test is ever so slightly
> different from the others.
Yeh, I wondered that too, but I agree they're all slightly different in
their requirements so it'd just end up confusing things.
>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
