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

[Yang Xu]

on 2019/11/08 20:12, Yang Xu wrote:

>
> 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.

  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?

>>> +	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/20191108/5a18bc04/attachment-0001.htm>