linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbzfbTT9x3tfLrqhYgozcvxvHvKSVkvyuNqji=aNgvmZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:01:00 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
>
> * Load/attach a BPF program that hooks to file_mprotect (int)
>   and bprm_committed_creds (void).
> * Perform an action that triggers the hook.
> * Verify if the audit event was received using the shared global
>   variables for the process executed.
> * Verify if the mprotect returns a -EPERM.
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config            |  2 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c       | 84 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c       | 48 +++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 134 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
>

[...]

> +
> +int exec_cmd(int *monitored_pid)
> +{
> +       int child_pid;
> +
> +       child_pid = fork();
> +       if (child_pid == 0) {
> +               *monitored_pid = getpid();
> +               execvp(CMD_ARGS[0], CMD_ARGS);
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       } else if (child_pid > 0)

This test is part of test_progs, so let's be a good citizen and wait
for your specific child. I'd rather not hunt for elusive bugs later,
so please use waitpid() instead.

Otherwise looks good and clean, thanks!

> +               return wait(NULL);
> +
> +       return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +

[...]