Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */ EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER), -1); EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84 Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1 Author: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris:
- Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
- seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho)
* 'next-seccomp' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security: seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change seccomp: fix poor type promotion samples: add an example of seccomp user trap seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace seccomp: switch system call argument type to void * seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) == seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog) (18446744073709551615) seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0], &buf, 1) (0) global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) == WEXITSTATUS(status) (1) seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) == EBUSY (16)
thanks, -- Shuah
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */ EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER), -1); EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84 Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1 Author: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris: - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho) * 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security: seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change seccomp: fix poor type promotion samples: add an example of seccomp user trap seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace seccomp: switch system call argument type to void * seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) == seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog) (18446744073709551615) seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0], &buf, 1) (0) global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) == WEXITSTATUS(status) (1) seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) == EBUSY (16)
Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */ EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER), -1); EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84 Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1 Author: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris: - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho) * 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security: seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change seccomp: fix poor type promotion samples: add an example of seccomp user trap seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace seccomp: switch system call argument type to void * seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) == seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog) (18446744073709551615) seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0], &buf, 1) (0) global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) == WEXITSTATUS(status) (1) seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) == EBUSY (16)
Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular, it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that does the synchronization. Something like,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c @@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata) };
/* one with log, one without */ - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog)); - ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog)); + EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
- ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0])); + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0])); ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "1", 1)); ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I didn't know that :).
Tycho
On 1/16/19 5:44 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */ EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER), -1); EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84 Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1 Author: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris: - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho) * 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security: seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change seccomp: fix poor type promotion samples: add an example of seccomp user trap seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace seccomp: switch system call argument type to void * seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) == seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog) (18446744073709551615) seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0], &buf, 1) (0) global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) == WEXITSTATUS(status) (1) seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) == EBUSY (16)
Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular, it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that does the synchronization. Something like,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c @@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata) }; /* one with log, one without */
ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog));
ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I didn't know that :).
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
thanks, -- Shuah
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
Thanks!
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not real-root, I guess?
Tycho
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.ws wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not real-root, I guess?
Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO list...
-Kees
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:41:59AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.ws wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not real-root, I guess?
Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO list...
Ok, I'll try to send a couple of patches soon to fix some of this up. But at least yours should should stop things from hanging for now.
Thanks,
Tycho
On 1/17/19 9:45 AM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:41:59AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.ws wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel.
Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?)
I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not real-root, I guess?
Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness?
Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO list...
Yup that is a good way to handle it. Please skip the test with ksft skip code for non-root runs.
Ok, I'll try to send a couple of patches soon to fix some of this up. But at least yours should should stop things from hanging for now.
I am going to take Kees's patch to prevent hangs right away.
thanks, -- Shuah
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:44 PM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.ws wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Kees and James,
seccomp_bpf test hangs right after the following test passes with EBUSY. Please see log at the end.
/* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */ EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER), -1); EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
The user_notification_basic test starts running I assume and then the hang.
The only commit I see that could be suspect is the following as it talks about adding SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
commit d9a7fa67b4bfe6ce93ee9aab23ae2e7ca0763e84 Merge: f218a29c25ad 55b8cbe470d1 Author: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Wed Jan 2 09:48:13 2019 -0800
Merge branch 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
Pull seccomp updates from James Morris: - Add SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF - seccomp fixes for sparse warnings and s390 build (Tycho) * 'next-seccomp' ofgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security: seccomp, s390: fix build for syscall type change seccomp: fix poor type promotion samples: add an example of seccomp user trap seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace seccomp: switch system call argument type to void * seccomp: hoist struct seccomp_data recalculation higher
Any ideas on how to proceed? Here is the log. The following reproduces the problem.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/ run_tests
seccomp_bpf.c:2947:global.get_metadata:Expected 0 (0) == seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog) (18446744073709551615) seccomp_bpf.c:2959:global.get_metadata:Expected 1 (1) == read(pipefd[0], &buf, 1) (0) global.get_metadata: Test terminated by assertion [ FAIL ] global.get_metadata [ RUN ] global.user_notification_basic seccomp_bpf.c:3036:global.user_notification_basic:Expected 0 (0) == WEXITSTATUS(status) (1) seccomp_bpf.c:3039:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3040:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3041:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3042:global.user_notification_basic:Expected seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog) (18446744073709551615) == 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3047:global.user_notification_basic:Expected listener (18446744073709551615) >= 0 (0) seccomp_bpf.c:3053:global.user_notification_basic:Expected errno (13) == EBUSY (16)
Looks like the test is unfriendly when running the current selftest on an old kernel version. A quick look seems like it's missing some ASSERT_* cases where EXPECT_* is used. I'll send a patch.
ASSERT will kill the test case though right? I thought we were supposed to use EXPECT when we wanted it to keep going. In particular, it looks like in the get_metadata test, we should be using expect instead of assert in some places, so we can get to the write() that does the synchronization. Something like,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c index 067cb4607d6c..4d2508af2483 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c @@ -2943,11 +2943,11 @@ TEST(get_metadata) };
/* one with log, one without */
ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER,
EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, &prog));
ASSERT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
EXPECT_EQ(0, seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog));
ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0]));
EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[0])); ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "1", 1)); ASSERT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
Yeah, if it breaks badly on a failure, let's do it.
But also, is running new tests on an old kernel expected to work? I didn't know that :).
It should at least not hang. :)
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Kees Cook -
shuah -
Tycho Andersen