lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Kees, Andy,
>
> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org> wrote:
>> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] -
>> feature and test together.
>> - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the
>> 'feature' could be a candidate for stable backports, but Arnd tried
>> that, and it was quite non-trivial. So perhaps we'll need some help
>> from the subsystem developers here.
>
> Could you please help us sort this out? Our goal is to help Greg with
> testing stable kernels, and currently the seccomp tests fail due to
> missing feature (seccomp ptrace hole closure) getting tested via
> latest kselftest.
>
> If you feel the feature isn't a stable candidate, then could you
> please help make the test degrade gracefully in its absence?

I don't really want to have that change be a backport -- it's quite
invasive across multiple architectures.

I would say just add a kernel version check to the test. This is
probably not the only selftest that will need such things. :)

I'd be happy to review such changes!

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-22 20:04    [W:0.036 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site