linux-kernel - Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests

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: <CAGXu5j+e5TEEYvwh1vA8Xks1ksrukar0jaG0CU9zE2BYZAvNcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:53:30 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS
 testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Kees, Andy,
>
> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote:
>> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] -
>> feature and test together.
>> - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the
>> 'feature' could be a candidate for stable backports, but Arnd tried
>> that, and it was quite non-trivial. So perhaps  we'll need some help
>> from the subsystem developers here.
>
> Could you please help us sort this out? Our goal is to help Greg with
> testing stable kernels, and currently the seccomp tests fail due to
> missing feature (seccomp ptrace hole closure) getting tested via
> latest kselftest.
>
> If you feel the feature isn't a stable candidate, then could you
> please help make the test degrade gracefully in its absence?

I don't really want to have that change be a backport -- it's quite
invasive across multiple architectures.

I would say just add a kernel version check to the test. This is
probably not the only selftest that will need such things. :)

I'd be happy to review such changes!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security