Message ID | 20200408235907.8718-1-cascardo@canonical.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | UBUNTU: SAUCE: selftests/seccomp: allow clock_nanosleep instead of nanosleep | expand |
Hello Thadeu, What is the targeted series for this patch? Thanks On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:59 AM Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> wrote: > > glibc 2.31 calls clock_nanosleep when its nanosleep function is used. So > the restart_syscall fails after that. In order to deal with it, we trace > clock_nanosleep and nanosleep. Then we check for either. > > This works just fine on systems with both glibc 2.30 and glibc 2.31, > whereas it failed before on a system with glibc 2.31. > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > index ee1b727ede04..fa2b87aa0bda 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > @@ -2749,12 +2749,13 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)), > > #ifdef __NR_sigreturn > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 6, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 7, 0), > #endif > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 5, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 4, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 3, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 4, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 6, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 5, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 4, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 5, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_clock_nanosleep, 4, 0), > BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_restart_syscall, 4, 0), > > /* Allow __NR_write for easy logging. */ > @@ -2841,7 +2842,8 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16)); > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg)); > ASSERT_EQ(0x100, msg); > - EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid)); > + ret = get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid); > + EXPECT_TRUE(ret == __NR_nanosleep || ret == __NR_clock_nanosleep); > > /* Might as well check siginfo for sanity while we're here. */ > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info)); > -- > 2.20.1 > > > -- > kernel-team mailing list > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:59:07PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > glibc 2.31 calls clock_nanosleep when its nanosleep function is used. So > the restart_syscall fails after that. In order to deal with it, we trace > clock_nanosleep and nanosleep. Then we check for either. > > This works just fine on systems with both glibc 2.30 and glibc 2.31, > whereas it failed before on a system with glibc 2.31. > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> Tested in focal. Fixes a problem that I've been chasing for quite a while, thanks! Acked-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > index ee1b727ede04..fa2b87aa0bda 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > @@ -2749,12 +2749,13 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)), > > #ifdef __NR_sigreturn > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 6, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 7, 0), > #endif > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 5, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 4, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 3, 0), > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 4, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 6, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 5, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 4, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 5, 0), > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_clock_nanosleep, 4, 0), > BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_restart_syscall, 4, 0), > > /* Allow __NR_write for easy logging. */ > @@ -2841,7 +2842,8 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16)); > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg)); > ASSERT_EQ(0x100, msg); > - EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid)); > + ret = get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid); > + EXPECT_TRUE(ret == __NR_nanosleep || ret == __NR_clock_nanosleep); > > /* Might as well check siginfo for sanity while we're here. */ > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info)); > -- > 2.20.1 > > > -- > kernel-team mailing list > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 11:03:53AM +0800, Po-Hsu Lin wrote: > Hello Thadeu, > > What is the targeted series for this patch? > > Thanks Sorry, I missed that. It's Focal and Unstable. > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:59 AM Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo > <cascardo@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > glibc 2.31 calls clock_nanosleep when its nanosleep function is used. So > > the restart_syscall fails after that. In order to deal with it, we trace > > clock_nanosleep and nanosleep. Then we check for either. > > > > This works just fine on systems with both glibc 2.30 and glibc 2.31, > > whereas it failed before on a system with glibc 2.31. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 14 ++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > > index ee1b727ede04..fa2b87aa0bda 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > > @@ -2749,12 +2749,13 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > > offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)), > > > > #ifdef __NR_sigreturn > > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 6, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 7, 0), > > #endif > > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 5, 0), > > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 4, 0), > > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 3, 0), > > - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 4, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 6, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 5, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 4, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 5, 0), > > + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_clock_nanosleep, 4, 0), > > BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_restart_syscall, 4, 0), > > > > /* Allow __NR_write for easy logging. */ > > @@ -2841,7 +2842,8 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) > > ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16)); > > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg)); > > ASSERT_EQ(0x100, msg); > > - EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid)); > > + ret = get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid); > > + EXPECT_TRUE(ret == __NR_nanosleep || ret == __NR_clock_nanosleep); > > > > /* Might as well check siginfo for sanity while we're here. */ > > ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info)); > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > -- > > kernel-team mailing list > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:59:07PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > glibc 2.31 calls clock_nanosleep when its nanosleep function is used. So > the restart_syscall fails after that. In order to deal with it, we trace > clock_nanosleep and nanosleep. Then we check for either. > > This works just fine on systems with both glibc 2.30 and glibc 2.31, > whereas it failed before on a system with glibc 2.31. > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> Applied to focal/master-next and unstable/master, thanks!
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c index ee1b727ede04..fa2b87aa0bda 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c @@ -2749,12 +2749,13 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)), #ifdef __NR_sigreturn - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 6, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_sigreturn, 7, 0), #endif - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 5, 0), - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 4, 0), - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 3, 0), - BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 4, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 6, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 5, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 4, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 5, 0), + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_clock_nanosleep, 4, 0), BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_restart_syscall, 4, 0), /* Allow __NR_write for easy logging. */ @@ -2841,7 +2842,8 @@ TEST(syscall_restart) ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16)); ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg)); ASSERT_EQ(0x100, msg); - EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid)); + ret = get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid); + EXPECT_TRUE(ret == __NR_nanosleep || ret == __NR_clock_nanosleep); /* Might as well check siginfo for sanity while we're here. */ ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info));
glibc 2.31 calls clock_nanosleep when its nanosleep function is used. So the restart_syscall fails after that. In order to deal with it, we trace clock_nanosleep and nanosleep. Then we check for either. This works just fine on systems with both glibc 2.30 and glibc 2.31, whereas it failed before on a system with glibc 2.31. Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)