Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector

[Thomas Weißschuh]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 04:08:10AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 11:12:50PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > FYI there is also another patch to make nolibc-test buildable with
> > compilers that enable -fstack-protector by default.
> > Maybe this can be picked up until the proper stack-protector support is
> > hashed out.
> > Maybe even for 6.3:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230221-nolibc-no-stack-protector-v1-1-4e6a42f969e2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Ah thanks, it seems I indeed missed it. It looks good, I'll take it.

Do you have a tree with this published?
So I can make sure the next revision of this patchset does not lead to
conflicts.
 
> > > > +int run_stackprotector(int min, int max)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int llen = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	llen += printf("0 ");
> > > > +
> > > > +#if !defined(NOLIBC_STACKPROTECTOR)
> > > > +	llen += printf("stack smashing detection not supported");
> > > > +	pad_spc(llen, 64, "[SKIPPED]\n");
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't the whole function be enclosed instead ? I know it's more of
> > > a matter of taste, but avoiding to build and link it for archs that
> > > will not use it may be better.
> > 
> > The goal was to print a [SKIPPED] message if it's not supported.
> 
> Ah indeed makes sense.
> 
> > The overhead of doing this should be neglectable.
> 
> It was not the overhead (that's only a regtest program after all), I
> was more thinking about the difficulty to maintain this function over
> time for other archs if it starts to rely on optional support. But for
> now it's not a problem, it it would ever become one we could simply
> change that to have a function just print SKIPPED. So I'm fine with
> your option.
> 
> > > > @@ -719,8 +784,11 @@ int prepare(void)
> > > >  /* This is the definition of known test names, with their functions */
> > > >  static const struct test test_names[] = {
> > > >  	/* add new tests here */
> > > > -	{ .name = "syscall",   .func = run_syscall  },
> > > > -	{ .name = "stdlib",    .func = run_stdlib   },
> > > > +	{ .name = "syscall",        .func = run_syscall         },
> > > > +	{ .name = "stdlib",         .func = run_stdlib          },
> > > > +	{ .name = "stackprotector", .func = run_stackprotector, },
> > > > +	{ .name = "_smash_stack",   .func = run_smash_stack,
> > > 
> > > I think it would be better to keep the number of categories low
> > > and probably you should add just one called "protection" or so,
> > > and implement your various tests in it as is done for other
> > > categories. The goal is to help developers quickly spot and select
> > > the few activities they're interested in at a given moment. 
> > 
> > I'm not sure how this would be done. The goal here is that
> > "stackprotector" is the user-visible category. It can be changed to
> > "protection".
> > "_smash_stack" however is just an entrypoint that is used by the forked
> > process to call the crashing code.
> 
> Ah I didn't realize that, I now understand how that can be useful,
> indeed. Then maybe just rename your .skip_by_default field to .hidden
> so that it becomes more generic (i.e. if one day we permit enumeration
> we don't want such tests to be listed either), and assign the field on
> the same line so that it's easily visible with a grep.

Actually this works fine with a plain fork() and the exec() is not
needed. So the dedicated entrypoint is not needed anymore.
No idea what I tested before.