Re: [PATCH 3/3] selftests/mseal_system_mappings: Test vdso unmap and remap

["Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>]

Sorry, in mm we require commit messages. Even for tests :)

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 07:43:25PM +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
> ---
>  .../mseal_system_mappings/sysmap_is_sealed.c  | 92 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mseal_system_mappings/sysmap_is_sealed.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mseal_system_mappings/sysmap_is_sealed.c
> index ea75ad537620..83b4fadfbfe7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mseal_system_mappings/sysmap_is_sealed.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mseal_system_mappings/sysmap_is_sealed.c

Why on earth does 'mseal_system_mappings' have its own directory...??

Ugh I don't know how I let this stuff go on the original series :/

Please, for the love of all that's sacred, move these tests over to
tools/selftests/mm/. This is an mm feature, for our sins...

You can do the move as a prerequisite patch in the series.

(And, again, I really do insist on your change doing some cleanup here as
 well rather than extending this stuff.)

> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  #include <unistd.h>
>  #include <string.h>
>  #include <stdbool.h>
> +#include <sys/mman.h>
>  #include <sys/utsname.h>
>  #include <zlib.h>
>
> @@ -232,4 +233,95 @@ TEST_F(basic, check_sealed)
>  	EXPECT_EQ(expected, sealed);
>  };
>
> +static bool find_vdso(unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end)
> +{
> +	char line[MAX_LINE_LEN];
> +	bool found = false;
> +	FILE *maps;
> +
> +	maps = fopen("/proc/self/maps", "r");
> +	if (!maps)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	while (fgets(line, sizeof(line), maps)) {
> +		if (strstr(line, "[vdso]") &&
> +		    sscanf(line, "%lx-%lx", start, end) == 2) {
> +			found = true;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	fclose(maps);
> +	return found;
> +}

There's shared code for this kind of thing, please don't duplicate a
/proc/self/maps thing if unnecessary. Also there's a nicer ioctl interface for
all this.

See vm_utils.[ch].

> +
> +static int vdso_is_sealed(void)
> +{
> +	int sealed = -1;
> +	FILE *maps;
> +
> +	maps = fopen("/proc/self/smaps", "r");
> +	if (!maps)
> +		return -1;
> +	if (has_mapping("[vdso]", maps))
> +		sealed = mapping_is_sealed(maps);
> +	fclose(maps);
> +	return sealed;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Unmapping or moving [vdso] must fail with EPERM when it is sealed. When it
> + * is not sealed, it succeeds and leaves glibc with a stale vdso pointer, which
> + * is fine because each test runs in its own forked child.
> + */
> +TEST(vdso_munmap)
> +{
> +	int sealed;
> +	unsigned long start, end;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!find_vdso(&start, &end))
> +		SKIP(return, "could not find the mapping, [vdso]");
> +	sealed = vdso_is_sealed();
> +	if (sealed < 0)
> +		SKIP(return, "could not read the [vdso] sealing state");
> +
> +	ret = munmap((void *)start, end - start);
> +	if (sealed) {
> +		EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
> +		EXPECT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
> +	} else {
> +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
> +	}
> +	EXPECT_EQ(sealed, find_vdso(&start, &end));
> +}
> +
> +TEST(vdso_mremap)
> +{
> +	int sealed;
> +	unsigned long start, end, size, new_start;
> +	void *dst, *ret;
> +
> +	if (!find_vdso(&start, &end))
> +		SKIP(return, "could not find the mapping, [vdso]");
> +	sealed = vdso_is_sealed();
> +	if (sealed < 0)
> +		SKIP(return, "could not read the [vdso] sealing state");
> +	size = end - start;
> +
> +	dst = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_NONE, MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> +	ASSERT_NE(MAP_FAILED, dst);
> +
> +	ret = mremap((void *)start, size, size, MREMAP_MAYMOVE | MREMAP_FIXED,
> +		     dst);

I mean arguably this is an mremap test that belongs with mremap? I guess
debatable...

> +	if (sealed) {
> +		EXPECT_EQ(MAP_FAILED, ret);
> +		EXPECT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
> +	} else {
> +		EXPECT_EQ(dst, ret);
> +	}
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(find_vdso(&new_start, &end));
> +	EXPECT_EQ(sealed ? start : (unsigned long)dst, new_start);
> +}
> +
>  TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> --
> 2.54.0
>

This all just seems like work that should have been done in the past when this
feature was proposed, and doesn't depend on your changes at all AFAICT? Maybe I
missed it though.

Valuable in itself, but probably worth sending separately as a result? Otherwise
it's a little disconnected from the actual change you're making.

--
Cheers, Lorenzo