Re: [LTP] [lkp-robot] [KEYS] bdf7c0f8bf: ltp.add_key02.fail

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > commit: bdf7c0f8bf282ba44827ce3c7fd7936c8e90a18a ("KEYS: fix dereferencing NULL payload with nonzero length")
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Eric-Biggers/KEYS-fix-dereferencing-NULL-payload-with-nonzero-length/20170403-102013
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git next
> > 
> ...
> > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace):
> > 
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.447047] <<<test_start>>>
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.447365] tag=add_key02 stime=1492169102
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.447567] cmdline="add_key02"
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.447685] contacts=""
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.447826] analysis=exit
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.448011] <<<test_output>>>
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.448568] tst_test.c:760: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > 
> > user  :notice: [   45.449439] add_key02.c:65: FAIL: add_key() failed unexpectedly, expected EINVAL: EFAULT
> 
> In my opinion this is a valid behavior, and the test is just weird; it's passing
> in *both* an unaddressable payload and an invalid description, so it's not clear
> which case it's meant to be testing.  (Generally, if a syscall will fail for
> more than one reason, it's not guaranteed which error code you'll get.)

That is quite common problem with LTP testcases. Do you care to send a
patch or should I fix that?

> In any case, once we have a fix merged, it would be nice for there to be an ltp
> test added for the "NULL payload with nonzero length" case with one of the key
> types that crashed the kernel.

Here as well, feel free to send a patch or at least point us to a
reproducer that could be turned into a testcase.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@xxxxxxx