Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:35:57 +0000 | From | Sargun Dhillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] selftests/seccomp: Add test for wait killable notifier |
| |
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:19:33AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:31:13PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > > + > > + ASSERT_EQ(socketpair(PF_LOCAL, SOCK_SEQPACKET, 0, sk_pair), 0); > > + > > + listener = user_notif_syscall(__NR_getppid, > > + SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER | > > + SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE_RECV); > > + ASSERT_GE(listener, 0); > > + > > + pid = fork(); > > + ASSERT_GE(pid, 0); > > + > > + if (pid == 0) { > > + close(sk_pair[0]); > > + handled = sk_pair[1]; > > + > > + /* Setup the sigaction without SA_RESTART */ > > + if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &new_action, NULL)) { > > + perror("sigaction"); > > + exit(1); > > + } > > + > > + /* Make sure that the syscall is completed (no EINTR) */ > > + ret = syscall(__NR_getppid); > > + exit(ret != USER_NOTIF_MAGIC); > > + } > > + > > + while (get_proc_syscall(pid) != __NR_getppid && > > + get_proc_stat(pid) != 'S') > > + nanosleep(&delay, NULL); > > + > > + EXPECT_EQ(ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV, &req), 0); > > + /* Kill the process to make sure it enters the wait_killable state */ > > + EXPECT_EQ(kill(pid, SIGUSR1), 0); > > + > > + /* TASK_KILLABLE is considered D (Disk Sleep) state */ > > + while (get_proc_stat(pid) != 'D') > > + nanosleep(&delay, NULL); > > Should a NOWAIT waitpid() happen in this loop to make sure this doesn't > spin forever? > > i.e. running these tests on a kernel that doesn't have the support > shouldn't hang -- yes it'll time out eventually but that's annoying. ;) > Wouldn't this bail already because user_notif_syscall would assert out since the kernel would reject the unknown flag?
I might make this a little helper function, something like: static void wait_for_state(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t pid, char wait_for) { /* 100 ms */ struct timespec delay = { .tv_nsec = 100000000 }; int status;
while (get_proc_stat(pid) != wait_for) { ASSERT_EQ(waitpid(pid, &status, WNOHANG), 0) { if (WIFEXITED(status)) TH_LOG("Process %d exited with error code %d", pid, WEXITSTATUS(status)); else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) TH_LOG("Process %d exited due to signal %d", pid, WTERMSIG(status)); else TH_LOG("Process %d exited due to unknown reason", pid); } nanosleep(&delay, NULL); } } }
> > + > > + resp.id = req.id; > > + resp.val = USER_NOTIF_MAGIC; > > + EXPECT_EQ(ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND, &resp), 0); > > + > > + /* > > + * Make sure that the signal handler does get called once we're back in > > + * userspace. > > + */ > > + EXPECT_EQ(read(sk_pair[0], &c, 1), 1); > > + EXPECT_EQ(waitpid(pid, &status, 0), pid); > > + EXPECT_EQ(true, WIFEXITED(status)); > > + EXPECT_EQ(0, WEXITSTATUS(status)); > > +} > > + > > +TEST(user_notification_wait_killable_fatal) > > +{ > > + struct seccomp_notif req = {}; > > + int listener, status; > > + pid_t pid; > > + long ret; > > + /* 100 ms */ > > + struct timespec delay = { .tv_nsec = 100000000 }; > > + > > + ret = prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0); > > + ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) { > > + TH_LOG("Kernel does not support PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS!"); > > + } > > + > > + listener = user_notif_syscall(__NR_getppid, > > + SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER | > > + SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE_RECV); > > + ASSERT_GE(listener, 0); > > + > > + pid = fork(); > > + ASSERT_GE(pid, 0); > > + > > + if (pid == 0) { > > + /* This should never complete */ > > + syscall(__NR_getppid); > > + exit(1); > > + } > > + > > + while (get_proc_stat(pid) != 'S') > > + nanosleep(&delay, NULL); > > + > > + EXPECT_EQ(ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV, &req), 0); > > + /* Kill the process with a fatal signal */ > > + EXPECT_EQ(kill(pid, SIGTERM), 0); > > + > > + EXPECT_EQ(waitpid(pid, &status, 0), pid); > > + EXPECT_EQ(true, WIFSIGNALED(status)); > > + EXPECT_EQ(SIGTERM, WTERMSIG(status)); > > +} > > Should there be a test validating the inverse of this, as in _without_ > SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE_RECV, how should the above tests > behave? Don't we roughly get that from the user_notification_kill_in_middle and user_notification_signal?
Although, I might cleanup the user_notification_signal test to disable SA_RESTART like these tests.
> > Otherwise, looks good! Yay tests! > > -- > Kees Cook
| |