mbox series

[for-next/seccomp,0/3] Check ENOSYS under tracing

Message ID 20200705061232.4151319-1-keescook@chromium.org (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Check ENOSYS under tracing | expand

Message

Kees Cook July 5, 2020, 6:12 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

This expands the seccomp selftest to poke a architectural behavior corner
that Keno Fischer noticed[1]. In the process, I took the opportunity
to do the kselftest harness variant refactoring I'd been meaning to do,
which made adding this test much nicer.

I'd prefer this went via the seccomp tree, as it builds on top of the
other recent seccomp feature addition tests. Testing and reviews are
welcome! :)

Thanks,

-Kees

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABV8kRxA9mXPZwtYrjbAfOfFewhABHddipccgk-LQJO+ZYu4Xg@mail.gmail.com

Kees Cook (3):
  selftests/harness: Clean up kern-doc for fixtures
  selftests/seccomp: Refactor to use fixture variants
  selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing

 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h   |  15 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 217 ++++++------------
 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 160 deletions(-)

Comments

Will Deacon July 10, 2020, 12:40 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 11:12:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> This expands the seccomp selftest to poke a architectural behavior corner
> that Keno Fischer noticed[1]. In the process, I took the opportunity
> to do the kselftest harness variant refactoring I'd been meaning to do,
> which made adding this test much nicer.
> 
> I'd prefer this went via the seccomp tree, as it builds on top of the
> other recent seccomp feature addition tests. Testing and reviews are
> welcome! :)

Thanks! I tested these on arm64 (qemu) and they helped me to find a bug
in some patches I was writing.

Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

Will
Kees Cook July 10, 2020, 4:11 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:40:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 11:12:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > This expands the seccomp selftest to poke a architectural behavior corner
> > that Keno Fischer noticed[1]. In the process, I took the opportunity
> > to do the kselftest harness variant refactoring I'd been meaning to do,
> > which made adding this test much nicer.
> > 
> > I'd prefer this went via the seccomp tree, as it builds on top of the
> > other recent seccomp feature addition tests. Testing and reviews are
> > welcome! :)
> 
> Thanks! I tested these on arm64 (qemu) and they helped me to find a bug
> in some patches I was writing.

Hurray for tests! :)

> Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

Thanks!