linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] selftests/memfd: add tests for F_SEAL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202212080818.28476A4@keescook>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:21:29 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     jeffxu@...omium.org
Cc:     skhan@...uxfoundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, dverkamp@...omium.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        jeffxu@...gle.com, jorgelo@...omium.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, jannh@...gle.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] selftests/memfd: add tests for F_SEAL_EXEC

On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 03:49:35PM +0000, jeffxu@...omium.org wrote:
> From: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@...omium.org>
> 
> Basic tests to ensure that user/group/other execute bits cannot be
> changed after applying F_SEAL_EXEC to a memfd.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@...omium.org>
> Co-developed-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 128 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> index 94df2692e6e4..1d7e7b36bbdd 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> @@ -28,12 +28,44 @@
>  #define MFD_DEF_SIZE 8192
>  #define STACK_SIZE 65536
>  
> +#ifndef F_SEAL_EXEC
> +#define F_SEAL_EXEC	0x0020
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef MAX_PATH
> +#define MAX_PATH 256
> +#endif

I'd expect this to be named PATH_MAX, and it shouldn't need to have an
#ifdef? That's a regular POSIX define.

Otherwise, looks good. Though it'd be nice if this test use
kselftest_harness.h, but that's not your problem. :)

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook