From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
Cc: ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com, glider@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com,
dvyukov@google.com, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: disable kasan_strings() kunit test when CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE enabled
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 10:47:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aIyNIdN5dHTgzzQP@e129823.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250801113228-5a2487e0-0d90-4828-88c7-be2e3c23ad3b@linutronix.de>
Hi,
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 10:28:05AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > When CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE is enabled, invalid access from source
> > triggers __fortify_panic() which kills running task.
> >
> > This makes failured of kasan_strings() kunit testcase since the
> > kunit-try-cacth kthread running kasan_string() dies before checking the
> > fault.
>
> "makes failured" sounds wrong. Maybe this?
>
> "This interferes with kasan_strings(), as CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE will trigger
> and kill the test before KASAN can react."
>
> > To address this, add define for __NO_FORTIFY for kasan kunit test.
>
> "To address this" is superfluous. Maybe this?
> "Disable CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE through __NO_FORTIFY for the kasan kunit test to
> remove the interference."
Sorry. I'll refine the commit message with your suggestion.
Thanks
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> > ---
>
> Missing link and changelog to v1.
Right. I'll add
>
> > mm/kasan/Makefile | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/kasan/Makefile b/mm/kasan/Makefile
> > index dd93ae8a6beb..b70d76c167ca 100644
> > --- a/mm/kasan/Makefile
> > +++ b/mm/kasan/Makefile
> > @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ ifndef CONFIG_CC_HAS_KASAN_MEMINTRINSIC_PREFIX
> > CFLAGS_KASAN_TEST += -fno-builtin
> > endif
> >
> > +ifdef CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > +CFLAGS_KASAN_TEST += -D__NO_FORTIFY
> > +endif
>
> The ifdef is unnecessary. If CONFIG_FORITY_SOURCE is not enabled, the define
> will be a no-op. This also matches other uses of __NO_FORTIFY.
Right. However, it would be good to specify a relationship between
the define and configuration.
So, some usage of __NO_FORTIFY in Makefile using this pattern
(i.e) arch/riscv.
If you don't mind, I remain as it is.
Am I missing something?
Thanks.
[...]
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-01 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-01 9:28 Yeoreum Yun
2025-08-01 9:38 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-08-01 9:47 ` Yeoreum Yun [this message]
2025-08-01 10:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2025-08-01 11:59 ` Yeoreum Yun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aIyNIdN5dHTgzzQP@e129823.arm.com \
--to=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox