| Message ID | 20240521105348.126316-6-pvorel@suse.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | .needs_abi_bits + rewrite fork14 to new API | expand |
Hi! > testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c | 5 ++--- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c | 6 ++---- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > index 7a1458277..d910280c8 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > @@ -48,9 +48,8 @@ struct payload { > > static void setup(void) > { > - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) > - tst_res(TCONF, > - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > + tst_res(TCONF, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > } > > static void run(void) > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > index 7f8243de1..3b7bd8482 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > @@ -95,10 +95,8 @@ static void *buffer; > > void setup(void) > { > - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) { > - tst_res(TINFO, > - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > - } > + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > + tst_res(TINFO, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > > tst_setup_netns(); > } I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions...
Hi Cyril, all, > I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, > either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions... OK, the previous 4 got a review thus merged, this one is left out. Thanks for your time! Kind regards, Petr
Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c | 5 ++--- > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c | 6 ++---- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > > index 7a1458277..d910280c8 100644 > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c > > @@ -48,9 +48,8 @@ struct payload { > > static void setup(void) > > { > > - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) > > - tst_res(TCONF, > > - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > > + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > > + tst_res(TCONF, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > > } > > static void run(void) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > > index 7f8243de1..3b7bd8482 100644 > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c > > @@ -95,10 +95,8 @@ static void *buffer; > > void setup(void) > > { > > - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) { > > - tst_res(TINFO, > > - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > > - } > > + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > > + tst_res(TINFO, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > > tst_setup_netns(); > > } > I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, > either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions... Looking into this old patch, do we relax the conditions or use .needs_abi_bits = 32? setsockopt08.c prints only TINFO, thus !tst_is_compat_mode() would have to be used for the check. Kind regards, Petr
Hi! > > I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, > > either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions... > > Looking into this old patch, do we relax the conditions or use .needs_abi_bits = 32? > setsockopt08.c prints only TINFO, thus !tst_is_compat_mode() would have to be > used for the check. I guess that doing: if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) tst_res(TINFO, "The vunerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); Is a sensible approach. It does not hurt to run the test either way but it makes it clear that the original CVE it's not going to be reproduced without 32-bit compat mode.
Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > > I guess this is something that should be looked into after the release, > > > either we will need .needs_compat flag or relax the condtions... > > Looking into this old patch, do we relax the conditions or use .needs_abi_bits = 32? > > setsockopt08.c prints only TINFO, thus !tst_is_compat_mode() would have to be > > used for the check. > I guess that doing: > if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) > tst_res(TINFO, "The vunerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); > Is a sensible approach. It does not hurt to run the test either way but > it makes it clear that the original CVE it's not going to be reproduced > without 32-bit compat mode. +1. I modified that and dared to merge with your RBT (9dacb1ac27). Thanks for your review! Kind regards, Petr
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c index 7a1458277..d910280c8 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c @@ -48,9 +48,8 @@ struct payload { static void setup(void) { - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) - tst_res(TCONF, - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) + tst_res(TCONF, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); } static void run(void) diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c index 7f8243de1..3b7bd8482 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c @@ -95,10 +95,8 @@ static void *buffer; void setup(void) { - if (tst_kernel_bits() == 32 || sizeof(long) > 4) { - tst_res(TINFO, - "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); - } + if (!tst_is_compat_mode()) + tst_res(TINFO, "The vulnerability was only present in 32-bit compat mode"); tst_setup_netns(); }
Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> --- New in v2 I wonder if both shouldn't be TCONF or TINFO. Kind regards, Petr testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt03.c | 5 ++--- testcases/kernel/syscalls/setsockopt/setsockopt08.c | 6 ++---- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)