* Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
@ 2019-01-17 0:01 shuah
2019-01-17 0:30 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: shuah @ 2019-01-17 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook, jmorris
Cc: torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, shuah
Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes
with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
-1);
EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then
the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as
it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84
Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
- Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
- seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
* 'next-seccomp' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security:
seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change
seccomp: fix poor type promotion
samples: add an example of seccomp user trap
seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
seccomp: switch system call argument type to void *
seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following
reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) ==
seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)
(18446744073709551615)
seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0],
&buf, 1) (0)
global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion
[ FAIL ] global.get_metadata
[ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic
seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) ==
WEXITSTATUS(status) (1)
seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener
(18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0)
seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) ==
EBUSY (16)
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 0:01 Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs shuah
@ 2019-01-17 0:30 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 0:44 ` Tycho Andersen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-01-17 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shuah, Tycho Andersen
Cc: James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kees and James,
>
> seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes
> with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
>
> /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
> EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
> -1);
> EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
>
>
> The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then
> the hang.
>
> The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as
> it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
>
> commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84
> Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
>
> Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
>
> Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
>
> - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
>
> - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
>
> * 'next-seccomp' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security:
> seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change
> seccomp: fix poor type promotion
> samples: add an example of seccomp user trap
> seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
> seccomp: switch system call argument type to void *
> seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
>
>
> Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following
> reproduces the problem.
>
> make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
>
>
> seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) ==
> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)
> (18446744073709551615)
> seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0],
> &buf, 1) (0)
> global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion
> [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata
> [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic
> seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) ==
> WEXITSTATUS(status) (1)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener
> (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0)
> seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) ==
> EBUSY (16)
Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on
an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some
ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 0:30 ` Kees Cook
@ 2019-01-17 0:44 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 1:26 ` shuah
2019-01-17 16:11 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tycho Andersen @ 2019-01-17 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook
Cc: shuah, James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kees and James,
> >
> > seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes
> > with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
> >
> > /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
> > EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
> > SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
> > -1);
> > EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
> >
> >
> > The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then
> > the hang.
> >
> > The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as
> > it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> >
> > commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84
> > Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1
> > Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
> >
> > Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
> >
> > Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
> >
> > - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> >
> > - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
> >
> > * 'next-seccomp' of
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security:
> > seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change
> > seccomp: fix poor type promotion
> > samples: add an example of seccomp user trap
> > seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
> > seccomp: switch system call argument type to void *
> > seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
> >
> >
> > Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following
> > reproduces the problem.
> >
> > make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
> >
> >
> > seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) ==
> > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)
> > (18446744073709551615)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0],
> > &buf, 1) (0)
> > global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion
> > [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata
> > [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) ==
> > WEXITSTATUS(status) (1)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener
> > (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0)
> > seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) ==
> > EBUSY (16)
>
> Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on
> an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some
> ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were
supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular,
it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect
instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that
does the synchronization. Something like,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata)
};
/* one with log, one without */
- ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog));
- ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
- ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "1", 1));
ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I
didn't know that :).
Tycho
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 0:44 ` Tycho Andersen
@ 2019-01-17 1:26 ` shuah
2019-01-17 16:12 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 16:11 ` Kees Cook
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: shuah @ 2019-01-17 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tycho Andersen, Kees Cook
Cc: James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, shuah
On 1/16/19 5:44 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kees and James,
>>>
>>> seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes
>>> with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
>>>
>>> /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
>>> EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
>>> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
>>> -1);
>>> EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
>>>
>>>
>>> The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then
>>> the hang.
>>>
>>> The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as
>>> it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
>>>
>>> commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84
>>> Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1
>>> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
>>>
>>> Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
>>>
>>> Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
>>>
>>> - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
>>>
>>> - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
>>>
>>> * 'next-seccomp' of
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security:
>>> seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change
>>> seccomp: fix poor type promotion
>>> samples: add an example of seccomp user trap
>>> seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
>>> seccomp: switch system call argument type to void *
>>> seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following
>>> reproduces the problem.
>>>
>>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
>>>
>>>
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) ==
>>> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)
>>> (18446744073709551615)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0],
>>> &buf, 1) (0)
>>> global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion
>>> [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata
>>> [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) ==
>>> WEXITSTATUS(status) (1)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
>>> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
>>> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
>>> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
>>> seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener
>>> (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0)
>>> seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) ==
>>> EBUSY (16)
>>
>> Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on
>> an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some
>> ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
>
> ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were
> supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular,
> it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect
> instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that
> does the synchronization. Something like,
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata)
> };
>
> /* one with log, one without */
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog));
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
>
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
> ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "1", 1));
> ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
>
>
> But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I
> didn't know that :).
>
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 0:44 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 1:26 ` shuah
@ 2019-01-17 16:11 ` Kees Cook
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-01-17 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tycho Andersen
Cc: shuah, James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:44 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kees and James,
> > >
> > > seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes
> > > with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
> > >
> > > /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
> > > EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
> > > SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
> > > -1);
> > > EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
> > >
> > >
> > > The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then
> > > the hang.
> > >
> > > The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as
> > > it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> > >
> > > commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84
> > > Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1
> > > Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
> > >
> > > Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
> > >
> > > Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
> > >
> > > - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> > >
> > > - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
> > >
> > > * 'next-seccomp' of
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security:
> > > seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change
> > > seccomp: fix poor type promotion
> > > samples: add an example of seccomp user trap
> > > seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
> > > seccomp: switch system call argument type to void *
> > > seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following
> > > reproduces the problem.
> > >
> > > make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
> > >
> > >
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) ==
> > > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)
> > > (18446744073709551615)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0],
> > > &buf, 1) (0)
> > > global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion
> > > [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata
> > > [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) ==
> > > WEXITSTATUS(status) (1)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected
> > > seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener
> > > (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0)
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) ==
> > > EBUSY (16)
> >
> > Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on
> > an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some
> > ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
>
> ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were
> supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular,
> it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect
> instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that
> does the synchronization. Something like,
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata)
> };
>
> /* one with log, one without */
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog));
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
>
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
> ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "1", 1));
> ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
Yeah, if it breaks badly on a failure, let's do it.
> But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I
> didn't know that :).
It should at least not hang. :)
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 1:26 ` shuah
@ 2019-01-17 16:12 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 16:27 ` Tycho Andersen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-01-17 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shuah
Cc: Tycho Andersen, James Morris, Linus Torvalds,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a
kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for
you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 16:12 ` Kees Cook
@ 2019-01-17 16:27 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 16:41 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tycho Andersen @ 2019-01-17 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook
Cc: shuah, James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> > I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
>
> Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a
> kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for
> you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch
is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should
we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not
real-root, I guess?
Tycho
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 16:27 ` Tycho Andersen
@ 2019-01-17 16:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 16:45 ` Tycho Andersen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-01-17 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tycho Andersen
Cc: shuah, James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
> >
> > Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a
> > kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for
> > you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
>
> I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch
> is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should
> we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not
> real-root, I guess?
Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal
priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO
list...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 16:41 ` Kees Cook
@ 2019-01-17 16:45 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 17:53 ` shuah
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tycho Andersen @ 2019-01-17 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook
Cc: shuah, James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:41:59AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
> > >
> > > Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a
> > > kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for
> > > you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
> >
> > I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch
> > is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should
> > we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not
> > real-root, I guess?
>
> Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
>
> Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal
> priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO
> list...
Ok, I'll try to send a couple of patches soon to fix some of this up.
But at least yours should should stop things from hanging for now.
Thanks,
Tycho
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs
2019-01-17 16:45 ` Tycho Andersen
@ 2019-01-17 17:53 ` shuah
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: shuah @ 2019-01-17 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tycho Andersen, Kees Cook
Cc: James Morris, Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, shuah
On 1/17/19 9:45 AM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:41:59AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a
>>>> kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for
>>>> you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
>>>
>>> I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch
>>> is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should
>>> we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not
>>> real-root, I guess?
>>
>> Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal
>> priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO
>> list...
>
Yup that is a good way to handle it. Please skip the test with ksft skip
code for non-root runs.
> Ok, I'll try to send a couple of patches soon to fix some of this up.
> But at least yours should should stop things from hanging for now.
>
I am going to take Kees's patch to prevent hangs right away.
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-01-17 17:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-01-17 0:01 Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs shuah
2019-01-17 0:30 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 0:44 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 1:26 ` shuah
2019-01-17 16:12 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 16:27 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 16:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-17 16:45 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-01-17 17:53 ` shuah
2019-01-17 16:11 ` Kees Cook
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).