Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1681575 > unrolled thread

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS  testing with latest kselftests - some failures] Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org> - 2017-07-05 17:10 +0200

#1681575 — Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Andy,

On 24 June 2017 at 10:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a
>> design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace.  After determining
>> that fixing it solved a bunch of problems and didn't break any user
>> programs, we fixed it.  There might be new code that relies on the fix
>> being present in the sense that it would be insecure without the fix.
>>
>> The problem is that the fix is moderately intrusive and doesn't seem
>> like a great candidate for backporting, although we could plausibly do
>> it.
>
> That's fine, not all bugfixes that tests are created to find, should be
> backported.  That's up to the stable maintainers, or someone who has a
> device/vendor tree based on that kernel if they want to do that or not.
>
> That has nothing to do with the fact that the test should fail or
> gracefully degrade.  Tests should fail if the action that they are
> testing fails.  They should degrade and not run if the _feature_ they
> are testing is not present.

So, any updates on this yet - getting the seccomp tests to degrade
gracefully? I realise you mentioned that the fix could be intrusive;
just wanted to know if it was on your radar still.
>
> Yes, sometimes this is hard, like with the seccomp stuff, and will not
> always work, but that's the rule for our userspace api independant of
> any testing framework or code.
>
> Look at xfstests, no one gets mad when it adds a new test that old
> kernels fail at.  It's up to someone else to either backport the kernel
> change, if they want it fixed in an old kernel, not to have xfstests
> just not run it at all!  There's nothing different here either.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Thanks much,
Sumit.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web