[PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Kees Cook]

This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc tests.
---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c  | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h |  7 ++---
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index a004b4cce99e..770f47adf295 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -1210,6 +1210,10 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_poke, getpid_runs_normally)
 # define ARCH_REGS	struct pt_regs
 # define SYSCALL_NUM	gpr[0]
 # define SYSCALL_RET	gpr[3]
+#elif defined(__s390__)
+# define ARCH_REGS     s390_regs
+# define SYSCALL_NUM   gprs[2]
+# define SYSCALL_RET   gprs[2]
 #else
 # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and syscalls"
 #endif
@@ -1243,7 +1247,8 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
 	ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, tracee, NT_PRSTATUS, &iov);
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
 
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__powerpc__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || \
+    defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390__)
 	{
 		regs.SYSCALL_NUM = syscall;
 	}
@@ -1281,17 +1286,21 @@ void tracer_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
 	ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, tracee, NULL, &msg);
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
 
+	/* Validate and take action on expected syscalls. */
 	switch (msg) {
 	case 0x1002:
 		/* change getpid to getppid. */
+		EXPECT_EQ(__NR_getpid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
 		change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, __NR_getppid);
 		break;
 	case 0x1003:
 		/* skip gettid. */
+		EXPECT_EQ(__NR_gettid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
 		change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, -1);
 		break;
 	case 0x1004:
 		/* do nothing (allow getppid) */
+		EXPECT_EQ(__NR_getppid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
 		break;
 	default:
 		EXPECT_EQ(0, msg) {
@@ -1409,6 +1418,8 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, syscall_dropped)
 #  define __NR_seccomp 277
 # elif defined(__powerpc__)
 #  define __NR_seccomp 358
+# elif defined(__s390__)
+#  define __NR_seccomp 348
 # else
 #  warning "seccomp syscall number unknown for this architecture"
 #  define __NR_seccomp 0xffff
@@ -1453,6 +1464,9 @@ TEST(seccomp_syscall)
 
 	/* Reject insane operation. */
 	ret = seccomp(-1, 0, &prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
 		TH_LOG("Did not reject crazy op value!");
 	}
@@ -1501,6 +1515,9 @@ TEST(seccomp_syscall_mode_lock)
 	}
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Could not install filter!");
 	}
@@ -1535,6 +1552,9 @@ TEST(TSYNC_first)
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FLAG_FILTER_TSYNC,
 		      &prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Could not install initial filter with TSYNC!");
 	}
@@ -1694,6 +1714,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, siblings_fail_prctl)
 
 	/* Check prctl failure detection by requesting sib 0 diverge. */
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("setting filter failed");
 	}
@@ -1731,6 +1754,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_ancestor)
 	}
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
 	}
@@ -1805,6 +1831,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_no_filter)
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FLAG_FILTER_TSYNC,
 		      &self->apply_prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Could install filter on all threads!");
 	}
@@ -1833,6 +1862,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_one_divergence)
 	}
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
 	}
@@ -1890,6 +1922,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_not_under_filter)
 	}
 
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
+	ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+	}
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
 		TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
 	}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
index 977a6afc4489..fb2841601f2f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
@@ -370,11 +370,8 @@
 	__typeof__(_expected) __exp = (_expected); \
 	__typeof__(_seen) __seen = (_seen); \
 	if (!(__exp _t __seen)) { \
-		unsigned long long __exp_print = 0; \
-		unsigned long long __seen_print = 0; \
-		/* Avoid casting complaints the scariest way we can. */ \
-		memcpy(&__exp_print, &__exp, sizeof(__exp)); \
-		memcpy(&__seen_print, &__seen, sizeof(__seen)); \
+		unsigned long long __exp_print = (unsigned long long)__exp; \
+		unsigned long long __seen_print = (unsigned long long)__seen; \
 		__TH_LOG("Expected %s (%llu) %s %s (%llu)", \
 			 #_expected, __exp_print, #_t, \
 			 #_seen, __seen_print); \
-- 
1.9.1


-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Kees Cook]

Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?

-Kees

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc tests.
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c  | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h |  7 ++---
>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index a004b4cce99e..770f47adf295 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -1210,6 +1210,10 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_poke, getpid_runs_normally)
>  # define ARCH_REGS     struct pt_regs
>  # define SYSCALL_NUM   gpr[0]
>  # define SYSCALL_RET   gpr[3]
> +#elif defined(__s390__)
> +# define ARCH_REGS     s390_regs
> +# define SYSCALL_NUM   gprs[2]
> +# define SYSCALL_RET   gprs[2]
>  #else
>  # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and syscalls"
>  #endif
> @@ -1243,7 +1247,8 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
>         ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, tracee, NT_PRSTATUS, &iov);
>         EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>
> -#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__powerpc__)
> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || \
> +    defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390__)
>         {
>                 regs.SYSCALL_NUM = syscall;
>         }
> @@ -1281,17 +1286,21 @@ void tracer_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
>         ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, tracee, NULL, &msg);
>         EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>
> +       /* Validate and take action on expected syscalls. */
>         switch (msg) {
>         case 0x1002:
>                 /* change getpid to getppid. */
> +               EXPECT_EQ(__NR_getpid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
>                 change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, __NR_getppid);
>                 break;
>         case 0x1003:
>                 /* skip gettid. */
> +               EXPECT_EQ(__NR_gettid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
>                 change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, -1);
>                 break;
>         case 0x1004:
>                 /* do nothing (allow getppid) */
> +               EXPECT_EQ(__NR_getppid, get_syscall(_metadata, tracee));
>                 break;
>         default:
>                 EXPECT_EQ(0, msg) {
> @@ -1409,6 +1418,8 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, syscall_dropped)
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 277
>  # elif defined(__powerpc__)
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 358
> +# elif defined(__s390__)
> +#  define __NR_seccomp 348
>  # else
>  #  warning "seccomp syscall number unknown for this architecture"
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 0xffff
> @@ -1453,6 +1464,9 @@ TEST(seccomp_syscall)
>
>         /* Reject insane operation. */
>         ret = seccomp(-1, 0, &prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
>                 TH_LOG("Did not reject crazy op value!");
>         }
> @@ -1501,6 +1515,9 @@ TEST(seccomp_syscall_mode_lock)
>         }
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         EXPECT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Could not install filter!");
>         }
> @@ -1535,6 +1552,9 @@ TEST(TSYNC_first)
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FLAG_FILTER_TSYNC,
>                       &prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         EXPECT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Could not install initial filter with TSYNC!");
>         }
> @@ -1694,6 +1714,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, siblings_fail_prctl)
>
>         /* Check prctl failure detection by requesting sib 0 diverge. */
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("setting filter failed");
>         }
> @@ -1731,6 +1754,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_ancestor)
>         }
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
>         }
> @@ -1805,6 +1831,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_no_filter)
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, SECCOMP_FLAG_FILTER_TSYNC,
>                       &self->apply_prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Could install filter on all threads!");
>         }
> @@ -1833,6 +1862,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_with_one_divergence)
>         }
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
>         }
> @@ -1890,6 +1922,9 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_not_under_filter)
>         }
>
>         ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &self->root_prog);
> +       ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
> +               TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
> +       }
>         ASSERT_EQ(0, ret) {
>                 TH_LOG("Kernel does not support SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER!");
>         }
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
> index 977a6afc4489..fb2841601f2f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
> @@ -370,11 +370,8 @@
>         __typeof__(_expected) __exp = (_expected); \
>         __typeof__(_seen) __seen = (_seen); \
>         if (!(__exp _t __seen)) { \
> -               unsigned long long __exp_print = 0; \
> -               unsigned long long __seen_print = 0; \
> -               /* Avoid casting complaints the scariest way we can. */ \
> -               memcpy(&__exp_print, &__exp, sizeof(__exp)); \
> -               memcpy(&__seen_print, &__seen, sizeof(__seen)); \
> +               unsigned long long __exp_print = (unsigned long long)__exp; \
> +               unsigned long long __seen_print = (unsigned long long)__seen; \
>                 __TH_LOG("Expected %s (%llu) %s %s (%llu)", \
>                          #_expected, __exp_print, #_t, \
>                          #_seen, __seen_print); \
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Shuah Khan]

On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?
> 
> -Kees
> 
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> ---


Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
up for 4.3-rc1.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Shuah Khan]

On 09/09/2015 10:45 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
>>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
>>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
>>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
>>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>> ---
> 
> 
> Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
> up for 4.3-rc1.
> 

Hmm. It doesn't apply to linux-kselftest next. Based on your comment

"This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc
tests."

This one probably should go through PowerPc tree.

Adding Michael Ellerman to the thread,. Michael! Something
you can take in for 4.3-rc1??

thanks,
-- Shuah



-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 10:45 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?
>>>
>>> -Kees
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
>>>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
>>>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
>>>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
>>>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>
>>
>> Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
>> up for 4.3-rc1.
>>
>
> Hmm. It doesn't apply to linux-kselftest next. Based on your comment
>
> "This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc
> tests."

Well, it was -next when I sent it. :) The powerpc changes are now in
Linus's tree, so there should be no problem. Is your linux-kselftest
merged with 4.3-rc yet?

-Kees

>
> This one probably should go through PowerPc tree.
>
> Adding Michael Ellerman to the thread,. Michael! Something
> you can take in for 4.3-rc1??
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
>
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Shuah Khan]

On 09/09/2015 11:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 09/09/2015 10:45 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?
>>>>
>>>> -Kees
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
>>>>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
>>>>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
>>>>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
>>>>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
>>> up for 4.3-rc1.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm. It doesn't apply to linux-kselftest next. Based on your comment
>>
>> "This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc
>> tests."
> 
> Well, it was -next when I sent it. :) The powerpc changes are now in
> Linus's tree, so there should be no problem. Is your linux-kselftest
> merged with 4.3-rc yet?
> 

Kees,

I will get this into 4.3-rc2 as this patch fixes failure paths with
other fixes I am planning to send in rc2. Thanks for the ping on this.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Shuah Khan]

On 09/09/2015 12:46 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 11:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2015 10:45 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> Re-ping. Can someone pull this into their tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Kees
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
>>>>>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
>>>>>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
>>>>>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
>>>>>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
>>>> up for 4.3-rc1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. It doesn't apply to linux-kselftest next. Based on your comment
>>>
>>> "This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc
>>> tests."
>>
>> Well, it was -next when I sent it. :) The powerpc changes are now in
>> Linus's tree, so there should be no problem. Is your linux-kselftest
>> merged with 4.3-rc yet?
>>
> 
> Kees,
> 
> I will get this into 4.3-rc2 as this patch fixes failure paths with
> other fixes I am planning to send in rc2. Thanks for the ping on this.
> 

Applied to linux-kselftest fixes for 4.3-rc2

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: add support for s390

[Michael Ellerman]

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 10:23 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > On 09/09/2015 10:45 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >> On 09/09/2015 10:40 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>> This adds support for s390 to the seccomp selftests. Some improvements
> >>>> were made to enhance the accuracy of failure reporting, and additional
> >>>> tests were added to validate assumptions about the currently traced
> >>>> syscall. Also adds early asserts for running on older kernels to avoid
> >>>> noise when the seccomp syscall is not implemented.
> >>
> >> Sorry looks like it got lost in my LinuxCon backlog. I will queue it
> >> up for 4.3-rc1.
> >
> > Hmm. It doesn't apply to linux-kselftest next. Based on your comment
> >
> > "This applies on top of -next, following the addition of the powerpc
> > tests."
> 
> Well, it was -next when I sent it. :) The powerpc changes are now in
> Linus's tree, so there should be no problem. Is your linux-kselftest
> merged with 4.3-rc yet?

Right, it applies cleanly to Linus' tree as of ~now (b8889c4fc6ba).

So it should be fine to go via the selftest tree as a fix for rc1.

cheers