[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nbzkbbahgsds4s4ujmkvno7w42xxy7gkpsrtw7lay3253uabzu@iqgtepoo4fgo>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:51 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
xu xin <cgel.zte@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Stefan Roesch <shr@...kernel.io>,
Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Janis Danisevskis <jdanis@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: block chmod on /proc/thread-self/comm
On 2023-07-13, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > index 486334981e60..08f0969208eb 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > @@ -580,6 +580,10 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> > > CASE_TEST(chmod_net); EXPECT_SYSZR(proc, chmod("/proc/self/net", 0555)); break;
> > > CASE_TEST(chmod_self); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self", 0555), -1, EPERM); break;
> > > CASE_TEST(chown_self); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chown("/proc/self", 0, 0), -1, EPERM); break;
> > > + CASE_TEST(chmod_self_comm); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self/comm", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > > + CASE_TEST(chmod_tid_comm); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/thread-self/comm", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > > + CASE_TEST(chmod_self_environ);EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self/environ", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > > + CASE_TEST(chmod_tid_environ); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/thread-self/environ", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
>
> >
> > I'm not a big fan of this, it abuses the nolibc testsuite to test core
> > kernel functionality.
>
> Yes, this should be dropped.
> We need a minimal patch to fix this. This just makes backporting harder
> and any test doesn't need to be backported.
Alright, I'll drop it in v2 (though I'm not sure why there are tests for
/proc/self and /proc/self/net then).
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists