linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] selftest: epoll_busy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240506190245.3236424c@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 19:02:45 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nalramli@...tly.com, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] selftest: epoll_busy_poll: epoll busy poll
 tests

On Mon, 6 May 2024 18:40:00 -0700 Joe Damato wrote:
> Ah, sorry -- this is because I had assumed the test would run without
> CAP_NET_ADMIN, but since:
> 
>   epoll_busy_poll.c:204:test_set_invalid:Expected -1 (-1) == ret (0)
> 
> succeeds (ret = 0), clearly I am mistaken. Sorry about that.
> 
> I think I'll spin up a v3 and I'll add a test with and without
> CAP_NET_ADMIN to check both cases, which would probably be better anyway.

FWIW the tests run a in separate process from the harness, so it may 
be possible to drop privileges inside the test, without affecting other
test cases. But I've never done it myself, so not sure how easy it is
to do in practice..