From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:50:44 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 4/7] syscalls/kill05: Use any two unprivileged users In-Reply-To: <77fd98d9-5257-c1da-a01b-77d8cc1b6bce@suse.cz> References: <20210903154848.18705-1-mdoucha@suse.cz> <20210903154848.18705-5-mdoucha@suse.cz> <77fd98d9-5257-c1da-a01b-77d8cc1b6bce@suse.cz> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > I do wonder if we have to lookup the UIDs in this case. As long as I > > understand the test correctly we are testing that no signals are send to > > a process if the sender real of effective UID do not match either of > > real and saved set UIDs of the receiving process. If my understanding is > > correct we can just take two arbitrary UIDs that != 0 and the test > > should work just fine. > > We could just use UID 1 and 2 for this test but I'd rather not assume > that set*uid() functions allow setting unused UIDs. Even if it works > now, it could easily break in the future or on some special system auth > backends. Don't we already depend on being able to use unused GID? How is this different? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93290C433EF for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91AB06103B for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:50:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 91AB06103B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux.it Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BDF3C948B for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:50:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 843F33C2493 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:50:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0813D60097F for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:50:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DD51FEF6; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:50:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1630932634; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=D0Qzfp8WM1dGXRgjMZvXwDmve3gvgnzAS3jlKkdzYLI=; b=HYWSmevyCfQe1JPLDrLiTPJ8LGXSCBJQeNjIHvXTIGReSwEKn8W9G+mXhMKf1VQT0lszeY plHWES3n6bBSOOIushNfNeXBiEm6PD+IQ7RKFuAusBO36/QCu4I0mtunL/9sAbuJN+gczG tiNhPgAvX7IURPi+DvrqfGsIZcc1ucg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1630932634; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=D0Qzfp8WM1dGXRgjMZvXwDmve3gvgnzAS3jlKkdzYLI=; b=sYqjKK2uc/p9OF2+NdJk91A3ojG4QSVwD59d7isbRusD5atk61H/L3Firx+elMXsHqsfNX 7D34DAxCWDu3sdBQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54B2713C1B; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 7y/qE5oONmFzQQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:50:34 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:50:44 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Martin Doucha Message-ID: References: <20210903154848.18705-1-mdoucha@suse.cz> <20210903154848.18705-5-mdoucha@suse.cz> <77fd98d9-5257-c1da-a01b-77d8cc1b6bce@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <77fd98d9-5257-c1da-a01b-77d8cc1b6bce@suse.cz> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 4/7] syscalls/kill05: Use any two unprivileged users X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Message-ID: <20210906125044.2nzSVgTRbIWJsvXpg81Pm70dbY7_yc7ebDOkc67E7ak@z> Hi! > > I do wonder if we have to lookup the UIDs in this case. As long as I > > understand the test correctly we are testing that no signals are send to > > a process if the sender real of effective UID do not match either of > > real and saved set UIDs of the receiving process. If my understanding is > > correct we can just take two arbitrary UIDs that != 0 and the test > > should work just fine. > > We could just use UID 1 and 2 for this test but I'd rather not assume > that set*uid() functions allow setting unused UIDs. Even if it works > now, it could easily break in the future or on some special system auth > backends. Don't we already depend on being able to use unused GID? How is this different? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp