From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8423C433FE for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9109610E5 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232830AbhKCQR1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:17:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54512 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232825AbhKCQR0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:17:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1130AC061714 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id t11so2760218plq.11 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Gcc0EUM1EauKNq+43vPpaFdtVYVD7iAXZHWErocDtp0=; b=GerNQsh9cv7fbDFjWov4KivBQdKjB2oHp6+hu5L0IzSuHrFf7yC9nsNjEK4mKa1thg lIef1g1Q5waG3Bo27dyQD9IGceZ5FdA0UnVr/ZFrZRZrTE5L/cCOMJ3+Ap+sF3V9itpe xd7YTDezqpu5NUNKOUXH5YXvAc+giJbRz+574= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Gcc0EUM1EauKNq+43vPpaFdtVYVD7iAXZHWErocDtp0=; b=Vzp72KEtZfztGvAlH4KI/TK9ianhUpPcgKTY4p1srRH/wGeJvUR21py8YrpVZti6Ll JiiiEO5A9eaAZCTaQbXhfyVYVMQigu3SYhGGQlr205a+kPBSVTTJL/auC3NCFqMjwM+z 0YEnFlgAPaH5Jx7d5GRmSVKEPfS74+c895L9j/RQPLwudoVbNpczkcgd1b8mdRo1yK8F XML8Q36KBdEGHLV6+WUIYxlmlDg73QDpoAR4e12SvTcIJmv12P3ODcH0DOLdjcc2OiiY x40+q6dqt0/VKya6z5dpU485TQP8O3RUyinnmWQyX1quC1ij4Oo77aOEa93+f8kwJ8Ib HFug== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qy/mly00w1RG7ODcEKEPj/6ji+du/p0suq5oiUcwekr0Zfuvy u5iZF/K6oH1bjNfsSGBXXxk2Sg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfVfLAFqcLr/+fzW2AVuq4++yVTWfgk5KQYqUOGtMy5pycxzm1sypp4lVosI+3B8C3SbUzIg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:124d:: with SMTP id gx13mr15668790pjb.106.1635956088496; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 09:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u33sm3296082pfg.0.2021.11.03.09.14.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Nov 2021 09:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:14:47 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrea Righi , Shuah Khan , Alexei Starovoitov , Andy Lutomirski , Will Drewry , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: selftests: seccomp_bpf failure on 5.15 Message-ID: <202111030838.CB201E4@keescook> References: <202110280955.B18CB67@keescook> <878rydm56l.fsf@disp2133> <202110281136.5CE65399A7@keescook> <8735okls76.fsf@disp2133> <202110290755.451B036CE9@keescook> <87y2665sf8.fsf@disp2133> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y2665sf8.fsf@disp2133> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 01:22:19PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kees Cook writes: > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Kees Cook writes: > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:26:26PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> Is it a problem that the debugger can see the signal if the process does > >> not? > > > > Right, I'm trying to understand that too. However, my neighbor just lost > > power. :| > > > > What I was in the middle of checking was what ptrace "sees" going > > through a fatal SIGSYS; my initial debugging attempts were weird. > > Kees have you regained power and had a chance to see my SA_IMMUTABLE > patch? Apologies; I got busy with other stuff, but I've tested this now. It's happy and I see the expected behaviors again. Note that I used the patch with this change: -#define SA_IMMUTABLE 0x008000000 +#define SA_IMMUTABLE 0x00800000 Tested-by: Kees Cook Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook