[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <qveta77u5ruaq4byjn32y3vj2s2nz6qvsgixg5w5ensxqsyjkj@nx4mgl7x7o6o>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:43:14 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, Ben Copeland <benjamin.copeland@...aro.org>,
Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@...e.com>
Subject: Re: 6.18.0-rc1: LTP syscalls ioctl_pidfd05: TFAIL: ioctl(pidfd,
PIDFD_GET_INFO_SHORT, info_invalid) expected EINVAL: ENOTTY (25)
On Fri 17-10-25 11:40:41, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > > ## Test error log
> > > tst_buffers.c:57: TINFO: Test is using guarded buffers
> > > tst_test.c:2021: TINFO: LTP version: 20250930
> > > tst_test.c:2024: TINFO: Tested kernel: 6.18.0-rc1 #1 SMP PREEMPT
> > > @1760657272 aarch64
> > > tst_kconfig.c:88: TINFO: Parsing kernel config '/proc/config.gz'
> > > tst_kconfig.c:676: TINFO: CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS kernel option detected
> > > which might slow the execution
> > > tst_test.c:1842: TINFO: Overall timeout per run is 0h 21m 36s
> > > ioctl_pidfd05.c:45: TPASS: ioctl(pidfd, PIDFD_GET_INFO, NULL) : EINVAL (22)
> > > ioctl_pidfd05.c:46: TFAIL: ioctl(pidfd, PIDFD_GET_INFO_SHORT,
> > > info_invalid) expected EINVAL: ENOTTY (25)
>
> Looking closely this is a different problem.
>
> What we do in the test is that we pass PIDFD_IOCTL_INFO whith invalid
> size with:
>
> struct pidfd_info_invalid {
> uint32_t dummy;
> };
>
> #define PIDFD_GET_INFO_SHORT _IOWR(PIDFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 11, struct pidfd_info_invalid)
>
>
> And we expect to hit:
>
> if (usize < PIDFD_INFO_SIZE_VER0)
> return -EINVAL; /* First version, no smaller struct possible */
>
> in fs/pidfs.c
>
>
> And apparently the return value was changed in:
>
> commit 3c17001b21b9f168c957ced9384abe969019b609
> Author: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
> Date: Fri Sep 12 13:52:24 2025 +0200
>
> pidfs: validate extensible ioctls
>
> Validate extensible ioctls stricter than we do now.
>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
>
> diff --git a/fs/pidfs.c b/fs/pidfs.c
> index edc35522d75c..0a5083b9cce5 100644
> --- a/fs/pidfs.c
> +++ b/fs/pidfs.c
> @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ static bool pidfs_ioctl_valid(unsigned int cmd)
> * erronously mistook the file descriptor for a pidfd.
> * This is not perfect but will catch most cases.
> */
> - return (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) == _IOC_TYPE(PIDFD_GET_INFO));
> + return extensible_ioctl_valid(cmd, PIDFD_GET_INFO, PIDFD_INFO_SIZE_VER0);
> }
>
> return false;
>
>
> So kernel has changed error it returns, if this is a regression or not
> is for kernel developers to decide.
Yes, it's mostly a question to Christian whether if passed size for
extensible ioctl is smaller than minimal, we should be returning
ENOIOCTLCMD or EINVAL. I think EINVAL would make more sense but Christian
is our "extensible ioctl expert" :).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists