[LTP] [PATCH] Fix prctl02

[LTP] [PATCH] Fix prctl02

[Martin Doucha]

The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.

- Fixed arguments in test case 9 (second PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
- Dropped test case 13 (PR_CAP_AMBIENT) because the args are valid
- Dropped test case 14 (PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL) because the args are valid
- Fixed test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments

Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
CC: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c | 14 ++++----------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
index 93f30b54a..7bf3684e5 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
@@ -23,13 +23,9 @@
  * arg4, arg5 is non-zero.
  * 12) prctl() fails with EINVAL when options is PR_GET_THP_DISABLE & arg2,
  * arg3, arg4, or arg5 is nonzero.
- * 13) prctl() fails with EINVAL when options is PR_CAP_AMBIENT & an unused
- * argument such as arg4 is nonzero.
- * 14) prctl() fails with EINVAL when option is PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL and
- * unused arguments is nonzero.
- * 15) prctl() fails with EPERM when option is PR_SET_SECUREBITS and the
+ * 13) prctl() fails with EPERM when option is PR_SET_SECUREBITS and the
  * caller does not have the CAP_SETPCAP capability.
- * 16) prctl() fails with EPERM when option is PR_CAPBSET_DROP and the caller
+ * 14) prctl() fails with EPERM when option is PR_CAPBSET_DROP and the caller
  * does not have the CAP_SETPCAP capability.
  */
 
@@ -87,12 +83,10 @@ static struct tcase {
 	{PR_SET_SECCOMP, &num_2, &strict_addr, EACCES, "PR_SET_SECCOMP"},
 	{PR_SET_TIMING, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_TIMING"},
 	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_0, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
-	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
+	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
 	{PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
 	{PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, &num_0, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_THP_DISABLE"},
 	{PR_GET_THP_DISABLE, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_GET_THP_DISABLE"},
-	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, &num_2, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_CAP_AMBIENT"},
-	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL"},
 	{PR_SET_SECUREBITS, &num_0, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_SET_SECUREBITS"},
 	{PR_CAPBSET_DROP, &num_1, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_CAPBSET_DROP"},
 };
@@ -140,7 +134,7 @@ static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
 	break;
 	}
 
-	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3));
+	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3, 0, 0));
 	if (TST_RET == 0) {
 		tst_res(TFAIL, "prctl() succeeded unexpectedly");
 		return;
-- 
2.24.1

[LTP] [PATCH] Fix prctl02

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
> passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
> from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
> perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.
> 
> - Fixed arguments in test case 9 (second PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
> - Dropped test case 13 (PR_CAP_AMBIENT) because the args are valid
> - Dropped test case 14 (PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL) because the args are valid

Can we make them invalid and keep the test cases?
For example:
 PR_CAP_AMBIENT arg2 could be num_invalid
 PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL arg3 could be num_1

The rest looks good to me.

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Martin Doucha]

The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.

- Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
- Fix arguments in test case 9, 13 and 14
- Fix test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments

Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
CC: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
---

Changes since v1:
- Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
- Return removed test cases and fix them instead

 testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
index 93f30b54a..ebc0e5060 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
 #include <unistd.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <stddef.h>
+#include <limits.h>
 #include "config.h"
 #include "lapi/prctl.h"
 #include "lapi/seccomp.h"
@@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ static unsigned long bad_addr;
 static unsigned long num_0;
 static unsigned long num_1 = 1;
 static unsigned long num_2 = 2;
-static unsigned long num_invalid = 999;
+static unsigned long num_invalid = ULONG_MAX;
 static int seccomp_nsup;
 static int nonewprivs_nsup;
 static int thpdisable_nsup;
@@ -87,12 +88,12 @@ static struct tcase {
 	{PR_SET_SECCOMP, &num_2, &strict_addr, EACCES, "PR_SET_SECCOMP"},
 	{PR_SET_TIMING, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_TIMING"},
 	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_0, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
-	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
+	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
 	{PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
 	{PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, &num_0, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_THP_DISABLE"},
 	{PR_GET_THP_DISABLE, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_GET_THP_DISABLE"},
-	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, &num_2, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_CAP_AMBIENT"},
-	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL"},
+	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, &num_invalid, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_CAP_AMBIENT"},
+	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, &num_0, &num_invalid, EINVAL, "PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL"},
 	{PR_SET_SECUREBITS, &num_0, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_SET_SECUREBITS"},
 	{PR_CAPBSET_DROP, &num_1, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_CAPBSET_DROP"},
 };
@@ -140,7 +141,7 @@ static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
 	break;
 	}
 
-	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3));
+	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3, 0, 0));
 	if (TST_RET == 0) {
 		tst_res(TFAIL, "prctl() succeeded unexpectedly");
 		return;
-- 
2.24.1

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
> passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
> from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
> perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.
> 
> - Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
> - Fix arguments in test case 9, 13 and 14
> - Fix test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
> CC: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Yang Xu]

Hi
> The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
> passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
> from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
> perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.
> 
> - Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
> - Fix arguments in test case 9, 13 and 14
> - Fix test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments
looks prctl manpages and kernel code, you are right, Thanks for the fix!
Feel free to add?
Reviewed-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com
Tested-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com

Also, do we should use 5 arguments for other prctl test cases?

Best Regards
Yang Xu
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
> CC: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  
> Changes since v1:
> - Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
> - Return removed test cases and fix them instead
> 
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c | 11 ++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
> index 93f30b54a..ebc0e5060 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl02.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>   #include <unistd.h>
>   #include <stdlib.h>
>   #include <stddef.h>
> +#include <limits.h>
>   #include "config.h"
>   #include "lapi/prctl.h"
>   #include "lapi/seccomp.h"
> @@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ static unsigned long bad_addr;
>   static unsigned long num_0;
>   static unsigned long num_1 = 1;
>   static unsigned long num_2 = 2;
> -static unsigned long num_invalid = 999;
> +static unsigned long num_invalid = ULONG_MAX;
>   static int seccomp_nsup;
>   static int nonewprivs_nsup;
>   static int thpdisable_nsup;
> @@ -87,12 +88,12 @@ static struct tcase {
>   	{PR_SET_SECCOMP, &num_2, &strict_addr, EACCES, "PR_SET_SECCOMP"},
>   	{PR_SET_TIMING, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_TIMING"},
>   	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_0, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
> -	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
> +	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
>   	{PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS"},
>   	{PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, &num_0, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_SET_THP_DISABLE"},
>   	{PR_GET_THP_DISABLE, &num_1, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_GET_THP_DISABLE"},
> -	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, &num_2, &num_1, EINVAL, "PR_CAP_AMBIENT"},
> -	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, &num_1, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL"},
> +	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, &num_invalid, &num_0, EINVAL, "PR_CAP_AMBIENT"},
> +	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, &num_0, &num_invalid, EINVAL, "PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL"},
>   	{PR_SET_SECUREBITS, &num_0, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_SET_SECUREBITS"},
>   	{PR_CAPBSET_DROP, &num_1, &num_0, EPERM, "PR_CAPBSET_DROP"},
>   };
> @@ -140,7 +141,7 @@ static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
>   	break;
>   	}
>   
> -	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3));
> +	TEST(prctl(tc->option, *tc->arg2, *tc->arg3, 0, 0));
>   	if (TST_RET == 0) {
>   		tst_res(TFAIL, "prctl() succeeded unexpectedly");
>   		return;
> 

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
> > passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
> > from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
> > perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.
> > 
> > - Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
> > - Fix arguments in test case 9, 13 and 14
> > - Fix test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments
> looks prctl manpages and kernel code, you are right, Thanks for the fix!
> Feel free to add??
> Reviewed-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com
> Tested-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com
> 
> Also, do we should use 5 arguments for other prctl test cases?

It depends on the option argument, the PR_CAP_AMBIENT explicitely states
that arg4 and arg5 must be set to 0 as well as the
PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL.

Some of the options explicitely say that some arguments are ignored.

And some, including PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS does not say anyting.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Yang Xu]

Hi!
> Hi!
>>> The prctl() system call takes 5 integer arguments but only 3 of them were
>>> passed in the test. This means that the system call read random garbage
>>> from stack in place of the two missing arguments and failed even on some
>>> perfectly valid combinations of arguments on some platforms.
>>>
>>> - Change num_invalid to ULONG_MAX
>>> - Fix arguments in test case 9, 13 and 14
>>> - Fix test call of prctl() to have all 5 arguments
>> looks prctl manpages and kernel code, you are right, Thanks for the fix!
>> Feel free to add??
>> Reviewed-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com
>> Tested-by: xuyang_jy_0410@163.com
>>
>> Also, do we should use 5 arguments for other prctl test cases?
> 
> It depends on the option argument, the PR_CAP_AMBIENT explicitely states
> that arg4 and arg5 must be set to 0 as well as the
> PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL.
> 
> Some of the options explicitely say that some arguments are ignored.
> 
> And some, including PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS does not say anyting.
Thanks for your answer. I see.
> 

[LTP] [PATCH v2] Fix prctl02

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
Pushed, thanks.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz