From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756719AbbFQX0L (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:26:11 -0400 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:45915 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756698AbbFQX0D (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:26:03 -0400 Message-ID: <55820207.1070101@osg.samsung.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:25:59 -0600 From: Shuah Khan Organization: Samsung Open Source Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kees Cook , Michael Ellerman CC: LKML , Daniel Borkmann , Andy Lutomirski , Will Drewry , Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "David S. Miller" , Arnd Bergmann , Joe Perches , Jingoo Han , Linux API , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: add seccomp suite References: <20150616175414.GA24958@www.outflux.net> <1434526286.28933.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/17/2015 12:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 10:54 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> This imports the existing seccomp test suite into the kernel's selftests >>> tree. It contains extensive testing of seccomp features and corner cases. >>> There remain additional tests to move into the kernel tree, but they have >>> not yet been ported to all the architectures seccomp supports: >>> https://github.com/redpig/seccomp/tree/master/tests >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 1 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/.gitignore | 1 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/Makefile | 10 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 2109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h | 537 ++++++ >> >> >> Thanks very much for adding this, it would have been very helpful recently when >> I was trying to get seccomp filter working on powerpc :) >> >> I get one failure in TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped: >> >> seccomp_bpf.c:1394:TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped:Expected 1 (1) == syscall(207) (18446744073709551615) >> >> >> So it looks like we're returning -1 instead of 1. >> >> That's probably a bug in our handling of the return value, or maybe an >> inconsistency across the arches. I'll try and find time to dig into it. > > Ah-ha! Excellent. Did you add an implementation for change_syscall() > in seccomp_bpf.c? I don't have a powerpc method in there. I would have > expected both TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected and .syscall_dropped to > fail without that. > > If you did, maybe something isn't right with regs.SYSCALL_RET ? That's > where the return value being tested on a skipped syscall is stored. > > Thanks for testing! > Thanks for the test. Fantastic to see so many positive responses to this addition. Thanks Michael for testing it. It is now queued for 4.2 in linux-kselftest next thanks, -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978