<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<pre>on 2019/11/08 20:12, Yang Xu wrote:</pre>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3d882118-533e-f3a3-810b-b494f3f734d4@cn.fujitsu.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<pre>on 2019/11/07 22:54, Cyril Hrubis wrote:</pre>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20191107145416.GA25608@rei.lan">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> #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
+};
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>we only need one-liner with BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW) here.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20191107145416.GA25608@rei.lan">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> 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);
+ }
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Ok. I will do it as we usually do.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> I think about it again. The argument of prctl is all unsigned long type. Do we need to use
pointers to pointers？ Or, move this code to setup function like above?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3d882118-533e-f3a3-810b-b494f3f734d4@cn.fujitsu.com">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20191107145416.GA25608@rei.lan">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">+ 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: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>