linux-kernel - Re: selftests/capabilities: test FAIL on linux mainline and linux-next and PASS on linux-4.4.70+

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: <df3c647e-1724-bcbb-4467-22af0c3be6e7@osg.samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:16:24 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, luto@...nel.org
Cc:     keescook@...omium.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: selftests/capabilities: test FAIL on linux mainline and
 linux-next and PASS on linux-4.4.70+

On 06/27/2017 09:16 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:13:59PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:10:32PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>> selftest capabilities test failed on linux mainline and linux-next and
>>> PASS on linux-4.4.70+
>>
>> Odd.  Any chance you can use 'git bisect' to track down the offending
>> commit?
>>
>> Does this also fail on x86 or any other platform you have available?
>> Let me go try this on my laptop...
> 
> Ok, Linus's current tree (4.12.0-rc7+) also fails on this.  I'm guessing
> it's failing, it's hard to understand the output.  If only we had TAP
> output for this test :)

As far as the output, it isn't bad. Not TAP13 will help make it better.
The problem seems to with the individual messages error/info. messages
themselves. This test has the quality of a developer unit test and the
messages could be improved for non-developer use.

I ran the test on 4.11.8-rc1+ and 4.9.35-rc1 see the same failure.
It would be difficult to bisect this since it spans multiple releases.
I am hoping Andy can give us some insight.

[RUN]	+++ Tests with uid == 0 +++
[NOTE]	Using global UIDs for tests
[RUN]	Root => ep
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[OK]	Check cap_ambient manipulation rules
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE failed on non-inheritable cap
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE failed on non-permitted cap
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE worked
[OK]	Basic manipulation appears to work
[RUN]	Root +i => eip
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	UID 0 +ia => eipa
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	Root +ia, suidroot => eipa
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	Root +ia, suidnonroot => ip
[FAIL]	Wrong effective state (AT_SECURE is not set)
[FAIL]	Child failed
[RUN]	Root +ia, sgidroot => eipa
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	Root, gid != 0, +ia, sgidroot => eip
[FAIL]	Wrong ambient state (AT_SECURE is not set)
[FAIL]	Child failed
[RUN]	Root +ia, sgidnonroot => eip
[FAIL]	Wrong ambient state (AT_SECURE is not set)
[FAIL]	Child failed
[FAIL]	Child failed
[RUN]	+++ Tests with uid != 0 +++
[NOTE]	Using global UIDs for tests
[RUN]	Non-root => no caps
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[OK]	Check cap_ambient manipulation rules
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE failed on non-inheritable cap
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE failed on non-permitted cap
[OK]	PR_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE worked
[OK]	Basic manipulation appears to work
[RUN]	Non-root +i => i
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	UID 1 +ia => eipa
[OK]	Capabilities after execve were correct
[OK]	Child succeeded
[RUN]	Non-root +ia, sgidnonroot => i
[FAIL]	Wrong effective state (AT_SECURE is not set)
[FAIL]	Child failed

thanks,
-- Shuah