lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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. :)

Adding release checks to selftests is going to problematic for maintenance.
Tests should fail gracefully if feature isn't supported in older kernels.

Several tests do that now and please find a way to check for dependencies
and feature availability and fail the test gracefully. If there is a test
that can't do that for some reason, we can discuss it, but as a general
rule, I don't want to see kselftest patches that check release.

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-22 20:05    [W:1.385 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site