[LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/6] cve: fixes for Android

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/6] cve: fixes for Android

[Petr Vorel]

Hi,

Here some fixes to be able to build testcases/cve directory.

Kind regards,
Petr

Petr Vorel (6):
  android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669
  android: lib: Add missing include for tst_safe_pthread.h
  android: Add pty.h header
  android: cve: Fix build
  android: cve/stack_clash: Fix PAGE_MASK defined in <sys/user.h>
  android: cve/stack_clash: Fix warning

 include/android/pty.h         | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/android/versioning.h  | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/tst_safe_pthread.h    |  4 ++++
 testcases/cve/Makefile        |  7 +++++++
 testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c |  9 +++++++++
 testcases/cve/stack_clash.c   |  8 ++++----
 6 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 include/android/pty.h
 create mode 100644 include/android/versioning.h

-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Petr Vorel]

shmat() is not available on Android/Binder

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
 testcases/cve/Makefile | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
index 04abc1f9c..5119c67cf 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
+++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
@@ -28,4 +28,8 @@ cve-2014-0196:  LDLIBS += -lrt -lutil
 cve-2017-2671:	CFLAGS += -pthread
 cve-2017-2671:	LDLIBS += -lrt
 
+ifeq ($(ANDROID),1)
+FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS	+= cve-2017-5669
+endif
+
 include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[enh]

(strictly, shmat is there in the c library, but (a) there's an selinux
neverallow for sysv ipc and (b) it's compiled out of the kernel.)

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
> shmat() is not available on Android/Binder
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> ---
>  testcases/cve/Makefile | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> index 04abc1f9c..5119c67cf 100644
> --- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
> +++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> @@ -28,4 +28,8 @@ cve-2014-0196:  LDLIBS += -lrt -lutil
>  cve-2017-2671: CFLAGS += -pthread
>  cve-2017-2671: LDLIBS += -lrt
>
> +ifeq ($(ANDROID),1)
> +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS        += cve-2017-5669
> +endif
> +
>  include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> --
> 2.14.0
>



-- 
Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Sandeep Patil]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 02:59:21AM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> shmat() is not available on Android/Binder
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> ---
>  testcases/cve/Makefile | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> index 04abc1f9c..5119c67cf 100644
> --- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
> +++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> @@ -28,4 +28,8 @@ cve-2014-0196:  LDLIBS += -lrt -lutil
>  cve-2017-2671:	CFLAGS += -pthread
>  cve-2017-2671:	LDLIBS += -lrt
>  
> +ifeq ($(ANDROID),1)
> +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS	+= cve-2017-5669
> +endif
> +
>  include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk

Do you have pointers to how you are build + testing with this? There seem to
be some duplication of effort that I would like to avoid and make sure there
is only 1 way in which tests like this are disabled out of build.

I am currently working through a list[1] of disabled tests to make sure
nothing has changed and will love to have a unified way of maintaining that
list instead of doing it out-of-tree.

- ssp

1. https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/+/master/android/tools/disabled_tests.txt

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > shmat() is not available on Android/Binder
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  testcases/cve/Makefile | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> > index 04abc1f9c..5119c67cf 100644
> > --- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
> > +++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
> > @@ -28,4 +28,8 @@ cve-2014-0196:  LDLIBS += -lrt -lutil
> >  cve-2017-2671:	CFLAGS += -pthread
> >  cve-2017-2671:	LDLIBS += -lrt
> >  
> > +ifeq ($(ANDROID),1)
> > +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS	+= cve-2017-5669
> > +endif
> > +
> >  include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> 
> Do you have pointers to how you are build + testing with this? There seem to
> be some duplication of effort that I would like to avoid and make sure there
> is only 1 way in which tests like this are disabled out of build.

There was some initiall android support done by Steven Jackson, just
grep the git log for his name.

Basically what he did is to add a similar system we had for uClinux. You
are supposed to define shell variable ANDROID=1 when building for
android and the build system uses that to skip certain directories/files
from build.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Petr Vorel]

Hi,

> Do you have pointers to how you are build + testing with this? There seem to
> be some duplication of effort that I would like to avoid and make sure there
> is only 1 way in which tests like this are disabled out of build.

> I am currently working through a list[1] of disabled tests to make sure
> nothing has changed and will love to have a unified way of maintaining that
> list instead of doing it out-of-tree.

> - ssp

> 1. https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/+/master/android/tools/disabled_tests.txt

Great, it'd be nice to have working Android build (and not just everything disabled).
Nice list, thanks for sharing.

BTW do you build with standalone toolchain? Which API level are you going to support?
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/ndk/+/master/build/tools/make-standalone-toolchain.sh


Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[enh]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Do you have pointers to how you are build + testing with this? There seem to
> > be some duplication of effort that I would like to avoid and make sure there
> > is only 1 way in which tests like this are disabled out of build.
>
> > I am currently working through a list[1] of disabled tests to make sure
> > nothing has changed and will love to have a unified way of maintaining that
> > list instead of doing it out-of-tree.
>
> > - ssp
>
> > 1. https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/+/master/android/tools/disabled_tests.txt
>
> Great, it'd be nice to have working Android build (and not just everything disabled).
> Nice list, thanks for sharing.
>
> BTW do you build with standalone toolchain? Which API level are you going to support?
> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/ndk/+/master/build/tools/make-standalone-toolchain.sh

(since none of the folks actually working on this seem to be responding...)

no, they don't, but effectively, yes: the standalone toolchain is the
closest thing outside the platform build to what the platform build is
like. (and it's almost always the right choice any time you're trying
to build a non-Android linux project.)

as for the API level, because they're part of the platform build, in
NDK terms they're targeting "FUTURE", which isn't available in the
NDK. so you'll want 26 for now and then 27 when it's available and so
on.

if you *really* care, you can litter the code with stuff like

  #if defined(__BIONIC__) && __ANDROID_API_LEVEL__ > 21
  // code that requires something that only appeared in Lollipop
  #endif

but these VTS folks only care about the current platform release.
(because we can't suddenly go to OEMs and say "oh, that device you
shipped three or four years ago now has to pass this new test" for
obvious reasons :-) .)

one thing that's a little slippery is that there's stuff like SysV IPC
where the headers and functions are available and if you're on a
rooted device with a custom kernel, you can use it just fine, but
actual shipping Android devices MUST NOT ship with kernels that
support SysV IPC and MUST NOT relax the selinux neverallows that would
prevent you from using that stuff even if it was compiled in to your
kernel and so on... so there's a bit of a distinction between "i want
to be able to build this project" and "i want all these tests to
pass".

> Kind regards,
> Petr




-- 
Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Petr Vorel]

Hi,

> (since none of the folks actually working on this seem to be responding...)

> no, they don't, but effectively, yes: the standalone toolchain is the
> closest thing outside the platform build to what the platform build is
> like. (and it's almost always the right choice any time you're trying
> to build a non-Android linux project.)
Right, I should have realized from the link and Android.mk that you're building
in AOSP tree :-).

> as for the API level, because they're part of the platform build, in
> NDK terms they're targeting "FUTURE", which isn't available in the
> NDK. so you'll want 26 for now and then 27 when it's available and so
> on.

> if you *really* care, you can litter the code with stuff like

>   #if defined(__BIONIC__) && __ANDROID_API_LEVEL__ > 21
>   // code that requires something that only appeared in Lollipop
>   #endif
Well, even I posted code like this, I realized that flood the code with many
ifdefs isn't desired for LTP upstream especially AOSP itself doesn't care about
old releases.

> but these VTS folks only care about the current platform release.
> (because we can't suddenly go to OEMs and say "oh, that device you
> shipped three or four years ago now has to pass this new test" for
> obvious reasons :-) .)
"Nice" embedded industry :-).

> one thing that's a little slippery is that there's stuff like SysV IPC
> where the headers and functions are available and if you're on a
> rooted device with a custom kernel, you can use it just fine, but
> actual shipping Android devices MUST NOT ship with kernels that
> support SysV IPC and MUST NOT relax the selinux neverallows that would
> prevent you from using that stuff even if it was compiled in to your
> kernel and so on... so there's a bit of a distinction between "i want
> to be able to build this project" and "i want all these tests to
> pass".
Sure, successful build for android is the first step, IMHO the easier part.
And after fixing tests written in C there would be another challenging task:
make all this shell scripts working on Android (IMHO impossible with toolbox,
even with busybox would be hard).
OT: It'd be interesting to use LTP as a part of CTS to ensure that SysV IPC
doesn't work :-).


Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[enh]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > (since none of the folks actually working on this seem to be responding...)
>
> > no, they don't, but effectively, yes: the standalone toolchain is the
> > closest thing outside the platform build to what the platform build is
> > like. (and it's almost always the right choice any time you're trying
> > to build a non-Android linux project.)
> Right, I should have realized from the link and Android.mk that you're building
> in AOSP tree :-).
>
> > as for the API level, because they're part of the platform build, in
> > NDK terms they're targeting "FUTURE", which isn't available in the
> > NDK. so you'll want 26 for now and then 27 when it's available and so
> > on.
>
> > if you *really* care, you can litter the code with stuff like
>
> >   #if defined(__BIONIC__) && __ANDROID_API_LEVEL__ > 21
> >   // code that requires something that only appeared in Lollipop
> >   #endif
> Well, even I posted code like this, I realized that flood the code with many
> ifdefs isn't desired for LTP upstream especially AOSP itself doesn't care about
> old releases.

yeah, i don't think anyone would thank you for it :-)

> > but these VTS folks only care about the current platform release.
> > (because we can't suddenly go to OEMs and say "oh, that device you
> > shipped three or four years ago now has to pass this new test" for
> > obvious reasons :-) .)
> "Nice" embedded industry :-).
>
> > one thing that's a little slippery is that there's stuff like SysV IPC
> > where the headers and functions are available and if you're on a
> > rooted device with a custom kernel, you can use it just fine, but
> > actual shipping Android devices MUST NOT ship with kernels that
> > support SysV IPC and MUST NOT relax the selinux neverallows that would
> > prevent you from using that stuff even if it was compiled in to your
> > kernel and so on... so there's a bit of a distinction between "i want
> > to be able to build this project" and "i want all these tests to
> > pass".
> Sure, successful build for android is the first step, IMHO the easier part.
> And after fixing tests written in C there would be another challenging task:
> make all this shell scripts working on Android (IMHO impossible with toolbox,
> even with busybox would be hard).

toolbox is [mostly] long dead. current status:
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/shell_and_utilities/

(looks like i should update that to say where "O" occurred...)

if you have specific requests for missing commands/options, file them
at the toybox github or android bug tracker (or just mail me
directly).

> OT: It'd be interesting to use LTP as a part of CTS to ensure that SysV IPC
> doesn't work :-).

i think they are using LTP as part of VTS
(https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/treble), which is why
they're interested in building LTP with bionic for Android.

> Kind regards,
> Petr




-- 
Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/6] android: cve: Disable building cve-2017-5669

[Sandeep Patil]

(dropped the ball on this thread altogher...)

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:58:54PM -0700, enh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > (since none of the folks actually working on this seem to be responding...)
> >
> > > no, they don't, but effectively, yes: the standalone toolchain is the
> > > closest thing outside the platform build to what the platform build is
> > > like. (and it's almost always the right choice any time you're trying
> > > to build a non-Android linux project.)
> > Right, I should have realized from the link and Android.mk that you're building
> > in AOSP tree :-).
> >
> > > as for the API level, because they're part of the platform build, in
> > > NDK terms they're targeting "FUTURE", which isn't available in the
> > > NDK. so you'll want 26 for now and then 27 when it's available and so
> > > on.
> >
> > > if you *really* care, you can litter the code with stuff like
> >
> > >   #if defined(__BIONIC__) && __ANDROID_API_LEVEL__ > 21
> > >   // code that requires something that only appeared in Lollipop
> > >   #endif
> > Well, even I posted code like this, I realized that flood the code with many
> > ifdefs isn't desired for LTP upstream especially AOSP itself doesn't care about
> > old releases.
> 
> yeah, i don't think anyone would thank you for it :-)


Indeed :)

> 
> > > but these VTS folks only care about the current platform release.
> > > (because we can't suddenly go to OEMs and say "oh, that device you
> > > shipped three or four years ago now has to pass this new test" for
> > > obvious reasons :-) .)
> > "Nice" embedded industry :-).
> >
> > > one thing that's a little slippery is that there's stuff like SysV IPC
> > > where the headers and functions are available and if you're on a
> > > rooted device with a custom kernel, you can use it just fine, but
> > > actual shipping Android devices MUST NOT ship with kernels that
> > > support SysV IPC and MUST NOT relax the selinux neverallows that would
> > > prevent you from using that stuff even if it was compiled in to your
> > > kernel and so on... so there's a bit of a distinction between "i want
> > > to be able to build this project" and "i want all these tests to
> > > pass".
> > Sure, successful build for android is the first step, IMHO the easier part.
> > And after fixing tests written in C there would be another challenging task:
> > make all this shell scripts working on Android (IMHO impossible with toolbox,
> > even with busybox would be hard).
> 
> toolbox is [mostly] long dead. current status:
> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/shell_and_utilities/
> 
> (looks like i should update that to say where "O" occurred...)
> 
> if you have specific requests for missing commands/options, file them
> at the toybox github or android bug tracker (or just mail me
> directly).
> 
> > OT: It'd be interesting to use LTP as a part of CTS to ensure that SysV IPC
> > doesn't work :-).
> 
> i think they are using LTP as part of VTS
> (https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/treble), which is why
> they're interested in building LTP with bionic for Android.

Yes, LTP runs as part of VTS and that's the reason to get as many tests as
possible working with bionic (atleast those that apply to Android.) Teh
scripts and commands tests as we are finding out increasingly depend or make
assumptions about the environment that are simply not true with Android. So,
in *most* cases, they land in that "disabled_tests" list, for those that do
work or are fixable with "available tools", we keep them around and they are
run as part of VTS.


Also, FYI, there are tests in VTS that make sure certain kernel
configurations are not set, thus making sure SYSV_IPC is never compiled in.

- ssp

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/6] android: lib: Add missing include for tst_safe_pthread.h

[Petr Vorel]

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
Maybe __ANDROID__ or __BIONIC__ should be used to test.
---
 include/tst_safe_pthread.h | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/tst_safe_pthread.h b/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
index 0242d4c76..0551f063f 100644
--- a/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
+++ b/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
 #ifndef TST_SAFE_PTHREAD_H__
 #define TST_SAFE_PTHREAD_H__
 
+#ifdef __ANDROID_API__
+#include <pthread.h>
+#endif
+
 /*
  * Macro to use for making functions called only once in
  * multi-threaded tests such as init or cleanup function.
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/6] android: lib: Add missing include for tst_safe_pthread.h

[enh]

i'm not sure what's android-specific here. don't you want #include
<pthread.h> or #include <sys/types.h> for all platforms, to get
pthread_t and pthread_once_t?

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> ---
> Maybe __ANDROID__ or __BIONIC__ should be used to test.
> ---
>  include/tst_safe_pthread.h | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/tst_safe_pthread.h b/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
> index 0242d4c76..0551f063f 100644
> --- a/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
> +++ b/include/tst_safe_pthread.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
>  #ifndef TST_SAFE_PTHREAD_H__
>  #define TST_SAFE_PTHREAD_H__
>
> +#ifdef __ANDROID_API__
> +#include <pthread.h>
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * Macro to use for making functions called only once in
>   * multi-threaded tests such as init or cleanup function.
> --
> 2.14.0
>



-- 
Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 3/6] android: Add pty.h header

[Petr Vorel]

Taken from Bionic, modified.

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
I needed to add #include "versioning.h".
I was tempted to use check
#if defined(__ANDROID_API__) && __ANDROID_API__ >= 23
instead of macro __INTRODUCED_IN(X) which causes warnings, but smaller delta won.
---
 include/android/pty.h        | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/android/versioning.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/android/pty.h
 create mode 100644 include/android/versioning.h

diff --git a/include/android/pty.h b/include/android/pty.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..dbcaad225
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/android/pty.h
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2014 The Android Open Source Project
+ * All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+ * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
+ * are met:
+ *  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
+ *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+ *  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+ *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
+ *    the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
+ *    distribution.
+ *
+ * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
+ * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
+ * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
+ * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+ * COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
+ * INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
+ * BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
+ * OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
+ * AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
+ * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
+ * OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
+ * SUCH DAMAGE.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _PTY_H
+#define _PTY_H
+
+#include <sys/cdefs.h>
+
+#include <termios.h>
+#include <sys/ioctl.h>
+
+#include "versioning.h"
+
+__BEGIN_DECLS
+
+int openpty(int* __master_fd, int* __slave_fd, char* __slave_name, const struct termios* __termios_ptr, const struct winsize* __winsize_ptr) __INTRODUCED_IN(23);
+int forkpty(int* __master_fd, char* __slave_name, const struct termios* __termios_ptr, const struct winsize* __winsize_ptr) __INTRODUCED_IN(23);
+
+__END_DECLS
+
+#endif
diff --git a/include/android/versioning.h b/include/android/versioning.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4e1a1854c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/android/versioning.h
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2016 The Android Open Source Project
+ *
+ * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+ * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+ * You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+#ifndef ANDROID_VERSIONING_H
+#define ANDROID_VERSIONING_H
+
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_FUTURE __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_future")))
+#define __DEPRECATED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("deprecated_in=" #api_level)))
+#define __REMOVED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("obsoleted_in=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_32(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_32=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_64(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_64=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_ARM(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_arm=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_X86(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_x86=" #api_level)))
+#define __INTRODUCED_IN_MIPS(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_mips=" #api_level)))
+
+#define __VERSIONER_NO_GUARD __attribute__((annotate("versioner_no_guard")))
+
+#endif /* ANDROID_VERSIONING_H */
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 3/6] android: Add pty.h header

[enh]

this seems very wrong. if you're going to do something like this, i
think you should at least use __has_include_next and #include_next to
get the real header if it exists and only supply your own if not. (but
i'm not really sure what you're gaining here. you're turning a
compile-time failure on old API levels into a link-time failure? and
who exactly is running these tests on old versions of Android that
they can't change anyway?)

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Taken from Bionic, modified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> ---
> I needed to add #include "versioning.h".
> I was tempted to use check
> #if defined(__ANDROID_API__) && __ANDROID_API__ >= 23
> instead of macro __INTRODUCED_IN(X) which causes warnings, but smaller delta won.
> ---
>  include/android/pty.h        | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/android/versioning.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 include/android/pty.h
>  create mode 100644 include/android/versioning.h
>
> diff --git a/include/android/pty.h b/include/android/pty.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..dbcaad225
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/android/pty.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 The Android Open Source Project
> + * All rights reserved.
> + *
> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> + * are met:
> + *  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> + *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> + *  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> + *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> + *    the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> + *    distribution.
> + *
> + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> + * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> + * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> + * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> + * COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> + * INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
> + * BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
> + * OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
> + * AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
> + * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
> + * OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
> + * SUCH DAMAGE.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _PTY_H
> +#define _PTY_H
> +
> +#include <sys/cdefs.h>
> +
> +#include <termios.h>
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
> +
> +#include "versioning.h"
> +
> +__BEGIN_DECLS
> +
> +int openpty(int* __master_fd, int* __slave_fd, char* __slave_name, const struct termios* __termios_ptr, const struct winsize* __winsize_ptr) __INTRODUCED_IN(23);
> +int forkpty(int* __master_fd, char* __slave_name, const struct termios* __termios_ptr, const struct winsize* __winsize_ptr) __INTRODUCED_IN(23);
> +
> +__END_DECLS
> +
> +#endif
> diff --git a/include/android/versioning.h b/include/android/versioning.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..4e1a1854c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/android/versioning.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2016 The Android Open Source Project
> + *
> + * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
> + * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
> + * You may obtain a copy of the License at
> + *
> + *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> + *
> + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> + * limitations under the License.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef ANDROID_VERSIONING_H
> +#define ANDROID_VERSIONING_H
> +
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_FUTURE __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_future")))
> +#define __DEPRECATED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("deprecated_in=" #api_level)))
> +#define __REMOVED_IN(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("obsoleted_in=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_32(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_32=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_64(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_64=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_ARM(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_arm=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_X86(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_x86=" #api_level)))
> +#define __INTRODUCED_IN_MIPS(api_level) __attribute__((annotate("introduced_in_mips=" #api_level)))
> +
> +#define __VERSIONER_NO_GUARD __attribute__((annotate("versioner_no_guard")))
> +
> +#endif /* ANDROID_VERSIONING_H */
> --
> 2.14.0
>



-- 
Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 4/6] android: cve: Fix build of most of the tests

[Petr Vorel]

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
 testcases/cve/Makefile        | 3 +++
 testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c | 9 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
index 5119c67cf..7c8917569 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
+++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
 
 CFLAGS			+= -D_GNU_SOURCE
 
+ifneq ($(ANDROID),1)
 cve-2016-7117:	CFLAGS += -pthread
 cve-2016-7117:	LDLIBS += -lrt
 
@@ -27,9 +28,11 @@ cve-2014-0196:  LDLIBS += -lrt -lutil
 
 cve-2017-2671:	CFLAGS += -pthread
 cve-2017-2671:	LDLIBS += -lrt
+endif
 
 ifeq ($(ANDROID),1)
 FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS	+= cve-2017-5669
+CPPFLAGS		+= -I$(abs_srcdir)/../../include/android
 endif
 
 include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
diff --git a/testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c b/testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c
index 4e2b3f582..87fea2781 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c
+++ b/testcases/cve/cve-2014-0196.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
  * privilege escalation POC https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/33516/
  */
 
+#if !defined(__ANDROID_API__) || __ANDROID_API__ >= 23
 #include <pty.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <string.h>
@@ -159,3 +160,11 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
 	.cleanup = cleanup,
 	.test_all = run,
 };
+#else /* Android API < 23 */
+#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN
+#include "tst_test.h"
+int main(void)
+{
+	tst_brk(TCONF, "test does not run on Android API < 23");
+}
+#endif
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 4/6] android: cve: Fix build of most of the tests

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> +#if !defined(__ANDROID_API__) || __ANDROID_API__ >= 23

This looks ugly to me.

What is the exact problem here? Do the test fail to compile there? If so
we should really check for the missing feature and enable/disable the
test based on that rather than this hackery.

>  #include <pty.h>
>  #include <stdio.h>
>  #include <string.h>
> @@ -159,3 +160,11 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
>  	.cleanup = cleanup,
>  	.test_all = run,
>  };
> +#else /* Android API < 23 */
> +#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +	tst_brk(TCONF, "test does not run on Android API < 23");
> +}
> +#endif
> -- 
> 2.14.0
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 5/6] android: cve/stack_clash: Fix PAGE_MASK defined in <sys/user.h>

[Petr Vorel]

clash is caused by including <sys/wait.h>

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
 testcases/cve/stack_clash.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c b/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
index 082d362e9..2d2984824 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
+++ b/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
 #include "tst_safe_stdio.h"
 
 static unsigned long page_size;
-static unsigned long PAGE_MASK;
+static unsigned long page_mask;
 static unsigned long GAP_PAGES = 256;
 static unsigned long THRESHOLD;
 static int STACK_GROWSDOWN;
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ void do_child(void)
 	else
 		mapped_addr = stack_addr + gap;
 
-	mapped_addr &= PAGE_MASK;
+	mapped_addr &= page_mask;
 	map = SAFE_MMAP((void *)mapped_addr, MAPPED_LEN,
 			PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
 			MAP_ANON|MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ void setup(void)
 	char buf[4096], *p;
 
 	page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
-	PAGE_MASK = ~(page_size - 1);
+	page_mask = ~(page_size - 1);
 
 	buf[4095] = '\0';
 	SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/cmdline", "%4095[^\n]", buf);
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 5/6] android: cve/stack_clash: Fix PAGE_MASK defined in <sys/user.h>

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
Pushed, thanks.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 6/6] android: cve/stack_clash: Fix warning

[Petr Vorel]

format '%lx' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 8 has type 'ssize_t'

Still some warnings left in cve.

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
---
 testcases/cve/stack_clash.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c b/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
index 2d2984824..ee537a3c5 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
+++ b/testcases/cve/stack_clash.c
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ void segv_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *data LTP_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
 
 	tst_res(TINFO,
 		"mmap = [%lx, %lx), addr = %lx, diff = %lx, THRESHOLD = %lx",
-		mapped_addr, mmap_end, fault_addr, diff, THRESHOLD);
+		mapped_addr, mmap_end, fault_addr, (long)diff, THRESHOLD);
 	if (diff < 0 || (unsigned long)diff < THRESHOLD)
 		_exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
 	else
-- 
2.14.0

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 6/6] android: cve/stack_clash: Fix warning

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> format '%lx' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 8 has type 'ssize_t'

ssize_t should be printed by %zi these days

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz