Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrii Nakryiko <> | Date | Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:01:00 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM |
| |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote: > > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com> > > * Load/attach a BPF program that hooks to file_mprotect (int) > and bprm_committed_creds (void). > * Perform an action that triggers the hook. > * Verify if the audit event was received using the shared global > variables for the process executed. > * Verify if the mprotect returns a -EPERM. > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Florent Revest <revest@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config | 2 + > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++ > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c | 48 +++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 134 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c >
[...]
> + > +int exec_cmd(int *monitored_pid) > +{ > + int child_pid; > + > + child_pid = fork(); > + if (child_pid == 0) { > + *monitored_pid = getpid(); > + execvp(CMD_ARGS[0], CMD_ARGS); > + return -EINVAL; > + } else if (child_pid > 0)
This test is part of test_progs, so let's be a good citizen and wait for your specific child. I'd rather not hunt for elusive bugs later, so please use waitpid() instead.
Otherwise looks good and clean, thanks!
> + return wait(NULL); > + > + return -EINVAL; > +} > +
[...]
| |