[LTP] [PATCH v3] syscalls/prctl02: add more error tests

[Yang Xu]

on 2019/11/07 22:54, Cyril Hrubis wrote:

> Hi!
>>   #include <errno.h>
>>   #include <signal.h>
>>   #include <sys/prctl.h>
>> -
>> +#include <linux/filter.h>
>> +#include <linux/capability.h>
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +#include <stdlib.h>
>> +#include <stddef.h>
>> +#include "config.h"
>> +#include "lapi/prctl.h"
>> +#include "lapi/seccomp.h"
>> +#include "lapi/syscalls.h"
>>   #include "tst_test.h"
>> +#include "tst_capability.h"
>>   
>>   #define OPTION_INVALID 999
>>   #define INVALID_ARG 999
>>   
>> +static const struct sock_filter  strict_filter[] = {
>> +	BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_ABS, (offsetof (struct seccomp_data, nr))),
>> +
>> +	BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ, __NR_close, 5, 0),
>> +	BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ, __NR_exit,  4, 0),
>> +	BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ, __NR_wait4, 3, 0),
>> +	BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ, __NR_write, 2, 0),
>> +	BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ, __NR_clone, 1, 0),
>> +
>> +	BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
>> +	BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW)
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct sock_fprog  strict = {
>> +	.len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(strict_filter),
>> +	.filter = (struct sock_filter *)strict_filter
>> +};
> We do have the exact same bytecode in the prctl04.c, can we put it to a
> header and include it in both tests?
>
> Or alternatively do we need more than just one-liner with
> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW) here?

we only need one-liner with BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW) here.

>
>>   static struct tcase {
>>   	int option;
>>   	unsigned long arg2;
>> +	unsigned long arg3;
>>   	int exp_errno;
>> +	int bad_addr;
>>   } tcases[] = {
>> -	{OPTION_INVALID, 0, EINVAL},
>> -	{PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, INVALID_ARG, EINVAL},
>> +	{OPTION_INVALID, 0, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, INVALID_ARG, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_SET_DUMPABLE, 2, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_SET_NAME, 0, 0, EFAULT, 1},
>> +	{PR_SET_SECCOMP, 2, 0, EFAULT, 1},
>> +	{PR_SET_SECCOMP, 2, 2, EACCES, 0},
>> +	{PR_SET_TIMING, 1, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +#ifdef HAVE_DECL_PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS
>> +	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 0, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 1, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef HAVE_DECL_PR_SET_THP_DISABLE
>> +	{PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, 0, 1, EINVAL, 0},
>> +	{PR_GET_THP_DISABLE, 1, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef HAVE_DECL_PR_CAP_AMBIENT
>> +	{PR_CAP_AMBIENT, 2, 1, EINVAL, 0},
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef HAVE_DECL_PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTR
>> +	{PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL, 1, 0, EINVAL, 0},
>> +#endif
>> +	{PR_SET_SECUREBITS, 0, 0, EPERM, 0},
>> +	{PR_CAPBSET_DROP, 1, 0, EPERM, 0},
>>   };
>>   
>>   static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
>>   {
>>   	struct tcase *tc = &tcases[n];
>>   
>> -	TEST(prctl(tc->option, tc->arg2));
>> +	if (tc->arg3 == 2)
>> +		tc->arg3 = (unsigned long)&strict;
>> +	if (tc->bad_addr) {
>> +		if (tc->arg2)
>> +			tc->arg3 = (unsigned long)tst_get_bad_addr(NULL);
>> +		else
>> +			tc->arg2 = (unsigned long)tst_get_bad_addr(NULL);
>> +	}
> I do not like this hackery, can't we just change the test to use
> pointers to pointers and initialize global variables in the test setup
> as we usually do?

Ok. I will do it as we usually do.

>
>> +	TEST(prctl(tc->option, tc->arg2, tc->arg3));
>>   	if (TST_RET == 0) {
>>   		tst_res(TFAIL, "prctl() succeeded unexpectedly");
>>   		return;
>> @@ -38,7 +123,10 @@ static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
>>   	if (tc->exp_errno == TST_ERR) {
>>   		tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "prctl() failed as expected");
>>   	} else {
>> -		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "prctl() failed unexpectedly, expected %s",
>> +		if (tc->option == PR_SET_SECCOMP && TST_ERR == EINVAL)
>> +			tst_res(TCONF, "current system was not built with CONFIG_SECCOMP.");
>> +		else
>> +			tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "prctl() failed unexpectedly, expected %s",
>>   				tst_strerrno(tc->exp_errno));
>>   	}
>>   }
>> @@ -46,4 +134,9 @@ static void verify_prctl(unsigned int n)
>>   static struct tst_test test = {
>>   	.tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(tcases),
>>   	.test = verify_prctl,
>> +	.caps = (struct tst_cap []) {
>> +		TST_CAP(TST_CAP_DROP, CAP_SYS_ADMIN),
>> +		TST_CAP(TST_CAP_DROP, CAP_SETPCAP),
>> +		{}
>> +	},
>>   };
>> -- 
>> 2.18.0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20191108/19aa2243/attachment.htm>