Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel/sysctl: support setting sysctl parameters from kernel command line

On 4/6/20 7:08 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:58:50AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:08:36PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

quoted

quoted

Yes. Doing an internal extension isn't testing the actual code.

But it would.

[...]

quoted

I don't think anything is needed for this series. It can be boot tested
manually.

Why test it manually when it could be tested automatically with a new kconfig?

So, my impression is that adding code to the internals to test the
internals isn't a valid test (or at least makes it fragile) because the
test would depend on the changes to the internals (or at least depend on
non-default non-production CONFIGs).

The *internal* aspect here is an extension to boot params under a
kconfig which would simply append to it, as if the user would have

So there's no such kconfig yet to apply boot parameters specified by configure,
right? That would itself be a new feature. Or could we use bootconfig? (CC Masami)

added some more params. Since we already have test sysctl params the
only one we'd need to add on the test driver would be a dummy one which
tests the alias, on the second patch. We should have enough sysctls to
already test dummy values.

Right.

Nothing else would be needed as the sysctl test driver would just need
to test that the values expected when this is enabled is set.

quoted

Can you send a patch for what you think this should look like? Perhaps
I'm not correctly imagining what you're describing?

I rather get the person involved in the changes to do the testing so
as they're the ones designing the feature. If however it is not clear
what I mean I'm happy to elaborate.

Vlastimil do you get what I mean?

Hopefully :)

quoted

Regardless of testing, I think this series is ready for -mm.

I'm happy for it to go in provided we at least devise a follow up plan
for testing. Otherwise -- like other things, it won't get done.

OK I'll send a v2 and we can discuss the test driver details. I don't want to
neglect testing, but also not block the new functionality, in case it means
testing means adding another new functionality.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

  Luis