Re: [LTP] [04/12 FAILURE] LTP? sysctl03 test fails

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Garrett Cooper (yanegomi@gmail.com):
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Garrett Cooper (yanegomi@gmail.com):
> >> On May 5, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Subrata Modak wrote:
> >>
> >> > Subject: LTPś sysctl03 test fails
> >> >
> >> > Issues Description Below:
> >> > =====================================
> >> > # ./runltp -s sysctl03
> >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >> > sysctl03    1  TFAIL  :  Expected EPERM (1), got 13: Permission denied
> >> > sysctl03    2  TFAIL  :  Expected EPERM, got 13
> >> > sysctl03    1  TFAIL  :  Expected EPERM (1), got 13: Permission denied
> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=1 corefile=no
> >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
> >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >>
> >>       Already known and recently discussed.
> >
> > Not only can things move glacially in kernel-land, but decisions not
> > yet implemented can be changed.
> >
> > In the meantime, the sysctl's sit there as a potential subject for
> > exploitation.
> >
> > So not meaning to be argumentative for its own sake, I nevertheless
> > think it's better to fix the test than either to ignore or remove
> > it.  Two untested patches below - the one just replaces EPERM with
> > EACCESS.  The other removes the (imo misuided) notion that we can
> > guess at the failing errno.
> 
> Except that the documentation (manpages) should explicitly state what
> the failing conditions are for any given libcall and syscall. If not,
> the Linux kernel devs and documentation team have failed to do their
> job.

So since we're all member of the doc team, send a patch for sysctl(2)
manpage ERRORS section :)

(mtk cc:d as this is probably news to him)

> > An LSM could choose to return -EPERM
> > after all, or perhaps even something different.  The thing that
> > should scare us is if the call succeeds.  If we give any false
> > positives, then true positives will seem less scary.
> 
> This will fail on older kernels as sysctl(2) always returned EPERM due

Sorry - what will fail?

I think you're saying the first patch will, and I agree, which is why
I advocate the second one i pasted in.

> to the way it was improperly designed. Please see the previous thread
> for more info: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/4/354
> 
> Thanks,
> -Garrett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list