[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1910041820560.15827@viisi.sifive.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@...ive.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Vincent Chen <vincentc@...estech.com>,
Alan Kao <alankao@...estech.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, me@...losedp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:30 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:39:50AM -0700, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > > > I don't have the a build with SECCOMP for the board right now, so it
> > > > will have to wait. I just finished a new kernel (almost rc6) for Fedora,
> > >
> > > FWIW, I don't think this should block landing the code: all the tests
> > > fail without seccomp support. ;) So this patch is an improvement!
> >
> > Am sympathetic to this -- we did it with the hugetlb patches for RISC-V --
> > but it would be good to understand a little bit more about why the test
> > fails before we merge it.
>
> The test is almost certainly failing due to the environmental
> requirements (i.e. namespaces, user ids, etc). There are some corner
> cases in there that we've had to fix in the past. If the other tests
> are passing, then I would expect all the seccomp internals are fine --
> it's just the case being weird. It's just a matter of figuring out
> what state the test environment is in so we can cover that corner case
> too.
>
> > Once we merge the patch, it will probably reduce the motivation for others
> > to either understand and fix the underlying problem with the RISC-V code
> > -- or, if it truly is a flaky test, to drop (or fix) the test in the
> > seccomp_bpf kselftests.
>
> Sure, I get that point -- but I don't want to block seccomp landing
> for riscv for that. I suggested to David offlist that the test could
> just be marked with a FIXME XFAIL on riscv and once someone's in a
> better position to reproduce it we can fix it. (I think the test bug
> is almost certainly not riscv specific, but just some missing
> requirement that we aren't handling correctly.)
OK. It might be nice to mark the seccomp_bpf.c test as flaky in the
comments for the test.
> How does that sound?
Let's follow your plan. Thanks for your review and feedback.
- Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists