[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwNDGAVrik3DvWZf@fedora>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:19:28 +0530
From: Gautam Menghani <gautammenghani201@...il.com>
To: keescook@...omium.org, shuah@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, guoren@...nel.org
Cc: luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Check CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability in the
test mode_filter_without_nnp
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 02:55:29PM +0530, Gautam Menghani wrote:
> In the "mode_filter_without_nnp" test in seccomp_bpf, there is currently
> a TODO which asks to check the capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN instead of euid.
> This patch adds support to check if the calling process has the flag
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and also if this flag has CAP_EFFECTIVE set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gautam Menghani <gautammenghani201@...il.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 136df5b76319..16b0edc520ef 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ TEST(mode_filter_without_nnp)
> .filter = filter,
> };
> long ret;
> + cap_t cap = cap_get_proc();
> + cap_flag_value_t is_cap_sys_admin = 0;
>
> ret = prctl(PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 0, NULL, 0, 0);
> ASSERT_LE(0, ret) {
> @@ -400,8 +402,8 @@ TEST(mode_filter_without_nnp)
> errno = 0;
> ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &prog, 0, 0);
> /* Succeeds with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, fails without */
> - /* TODO(wad) check caps not euid */
> - if (geteuid()) {
> + cap_get_flag(cap, CAP_SYS_ADMIN, CAP_EFFECTIVE, &is_cap_sys_admin);
> + if (!is_cap_sys_admin) {
> EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
> EXPECT_EQ(EACCES, errno);
> } else {
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Hi,
Please review the above patch and let me know if any changes are required.
Thanks,
Gautam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists