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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 98252C433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 22:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73479206A2 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 22:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="SrQ7VnSc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727105AbgFDWpt (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:45:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45642 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726844AbgFDWps (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:45:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA98DC08C5C1 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id e9so4151273pgo.9 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=0/Ifpw3zohhhizup/iPeLdkC3yBceaz+iR6KHJ3Yp7w=; b=SrQ7VnScu3Op+k3qtU1bTlBve/IrhoIvaPcQQfuMsKsMtmX3GiGycjsmpSaJ2AnuDA sLq4MjD67cj2rWV6lZm9AXde9aoXtHyST0fTrFSBtBortq/FKnBoCzc4AjAVf67w4Qok MGxBkAmDISkBXLpBye8qEIXP9D2ZMSO395T7k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=0/Ifpw3zohhhizup/iPeLdkC3yBceaz+iR6KHJ3Yp7w=; b=llb05poF3SuSl1+kgsvNAVsyi/yISUECdM31glhCVELJN1nrNYVmWdSTp5jLidH3oB WhUrCwpZv+Gq658xuLpPyAnlrk0bj9LS/Uj1f8AqZXH8GdqSBtmhlnE0P+wk0J1Zxqpc psc3HCDFfsJEprKLkTtjeUO+GLs03XR87FFKq7wLOiblW4Bfz+ErvJepz+fE9QzC6tIW xJQdkJs/9kTiWNn+AWvuMHMWGU6CD2ym8EFDCMYZFO2P/CMKhx9yOvheR8vDotn3twoG y9a6E71NkNrlJFTDPIHjBrYP8xgARdWmW4JuCAR5DtXw2bY1/xf1LkWgk89EX8iR+rYT Xp9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532eadnHPSYVE6pZzffFOJIklf9r+dx7pOFk6SfJNb3Irt4qdTJj qjyWVS2OzpQBw/HukmzxrHgTtw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyN4dzHONC8ss9AIERs8X2Xzk+pU9aR8JSs6krPWrNtYee6rEeKAqIdDe6qG44ooQ6X4qDCxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f856:: with SMTP id v22mr6764340pgj.64.1591310748187; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm5065247pgk.50.2020.06.04.15.45.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:45:46 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: kernel test robot Cc: Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Tetsuo Handa , Eric Biggers , Dmitry Vyukov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it Subject: Re: [exec] 166d03c9ec: ltp.execveat02.fail Message-ID: <202006041542.0720CB7A@keescook> References: <20200518055457.12302-3-keescook@chromium.org> <20200525091420.GI12456@shao2-debian> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200525091420.GI12456@shao2-debian> Sender: linux-api-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 05:14:20PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > Greeting, (Whoops, I missed this in my inbox.) > <<>> > tag=execveat02 stime=1590373229 > cmdline="execveat02" > contacts="" > analysis=exit > <<>> > tst_test.c:1246: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s > execveat02.c:64: PASS: execveat() fails as expected: EBADF (9) > execveat02.c:64: PASS: execveat() fails as expected: EINVAL (22) > execveat02.c:61: FAIL: execveat() fails unexpectedly, expected: ELOOP: EACCES (13) > execveat02.c:64: PASS: execveat() fails as expected: ENOTDIR (20) I will go check on this. Looking at the expected result (ELOOP) I think this just means the test needs adjustment because it's trying to double-check for a pathological case, but it seems their test setup trips the (now earlier) IS_SREG() test. But I'll double-check and report back! -- Kees Cook