lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] samples, selftests/seccomp: Zero out seccomp_notif
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 07:10:29PM -0500, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I know it's unrelated, but it's probably worth sending a patch to fix
> > > this to be sizes.seccomp_notif_resp instead of sizeof(*resp), since if
> > > the kernel is older this will over-zero things. I can do that, or you
> > > can add the patch to this series, just let me know which.
> >
> > I was thinking about this, and initially, I chose to make the smaller
> > change. I think it might make more sense to combine the patch,
> > given that the memset behaviour is "incorrect" if we do it based on
> > sizeof(*req), or sizeof(*resp).
> >
> > I'll go ahead and respin this patch with the change to call memset
> > based on sizes.
>
> I think it would be good to keep it as a separate patch, since it's an
> unrelated bug fix. That way if we have to revert these because of some
> breakage, we won't lose the fix.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tycho

As I was doing this, I noticed that the self-tests all use hard-coded struct
sizes. When I was playing with extending the API, all of a sudden all the
self-tests started failing (until I recompiled them against newer headers).

Should we also change the self-tests to operate against the seccomp
sizes API, or was it intentional for the self-tests hard-coded the struct
definitions, and locked to the kernel version?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-30 20:15    [W:0.054 / U:3.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site