[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <334e6a92-2d41-c9e1-c807-19e493f1af83@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:09:38 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
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>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS
testing with latest kselftests - some failures]
On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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. :)
Adding release checks to selftests is going to problematic for maintenance.
Tests should fail gracefully if feature isn't supported in older kernels.
Several tests do that now and please find a way to check for dependencies
and feature availability and fail the test gracefully. If there is a test
that can't do that for some reason, we can discuss it, but as a general
rule, I don't want to see kselftest patches that check release.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists