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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1699095 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v5 6/6] seccomp: Selftest for detection of filter flag support

Started byTyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
First post2017-07-28 23:00 +0200
Last post2017-07-28 23:00 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

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

  [PATCH v5 6/6] seccomp: Selftest for detection of filter flag support Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-07-28 23:00 +0200

#1699095 — [PATCH v5 6/6] seccomp: Selftest for detection of filter flag support

FromTyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Date2017-07-28 23:00 +0200
Subject[PATCH v5 6/6] seccomp: Selftest for detection of filter flag support
Message-ID<u8kwy-iP-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
Userspace needs to be able to reliably detect the support of a filter
flag. A good way of doing that is by attempting to enter filter mode,
with the flag bit(s) in question set, and a NULL pointer for the args
parameter of seccomp(2). EFAULT indicates that the flag is valid and
EINVAL indicates that the flag is invalid.

This patch adds a selftest that can be used to test this method of
detection in userspace.

Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
---

* Changes since v4:
  - This is a new patch

 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 040e875..d221437 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -1885,6 +1885,64 @@ TEST(seccomp_syscall_mode_lock)
 	}
 }
 
+/* Test detection of known and unknown filter flags. Userspace needs to be able
+ * to check if a filter flag is support by the current kernel and a good way of
+ * doing that is by attempting to enter filter mode, with the flag bit in
+ * question set, and a NULL pointer for the _args_ parameter. EFAULT indicates
+ * that the flag is valid and EINVAL indicates that the flag is invalid.
+ */
+TEST(detect_seccomp_filter_flags)
+{
+	unsigned int flags[] = { SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC,
+				 SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG };
+	unsigned int flag, all_flags;
+	int i;
+	long ret;
+
+	/* Test detection of known-good filter flags */
+	for (i = 0, all_flags = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flags); i++) {
+		flag = flags[i];
+		ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+		ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+			TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+		}
+		EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+		EXPECT_EQ(EFAULT, errno) {
+			TH_LOG("Failed to detect that a known-good filter flag (0x%X) is supported!",
+			       flag);
+		}
+
+		all_flags |= flag;
+	}
+
+	/* Test detection of all known-good filter flags */
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, all_flags, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EFAULT, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that all known-good filter flags (0x%X) are supported!",
+		       all_flags);
+	}
+
+	/* Test detection of an unknown filter flag */
+	flag = -1;
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that an unknown filter flag (0x%X) is unsupported!",
+		       flag);
+	}
+
+	/* Test detection of an unknown filter flag that may simply need to be
+	 * added to this test */
+	flag = flags[ARRAY_SIZE(flags) - 1] << 1;
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that an unknown filter flag (0x%X) is unsupported! Does a new flag need to be added to this test?",
+		       flag);
+	}
+}
+
 TEST(TSYNC_first)
 {
 	struct sock_filter filter[] = {
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web