linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/3] selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing

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: <20200705061232.4151319-4-keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Sat,  4 Jul 2020 23:12:32 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing

There should be no difference between -1 and other negative syscalls
while tracing.

Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 966dec340ea8..bf6aa06c435c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -1973,6 +1973,32 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(TRACE_syscall)
 	teardown_trace_fixture(_metadata, self->tracer);
 }
 
+TEST(negative_ENOSYS)
+{
+	/* Untraced negative syscalls should return ENOSYS. */
+	errno = 0;
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-1));
+	EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
+	errno = 0;
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-101));
+	EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
+}
+
+TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, negative_ENOSYS)
+{
+	/*
+	 * There should be no difference between an "internal" skip
+	 * and userspace asking for syscall "-1".
+	 */
+	errno = 0;
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-1));
+	EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
+	/* And no difference for "still not valid but not -1". */
+	errno = 0;
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-101));
+	EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
+}
+
 TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, syscall_allowed)
 {
 	/* getppid works as expected (no changes). */
-- 
2.25.1