From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v4 1/2] capability: Introduce capability API
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:41:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190911144107.GA23680@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190904121147.26027-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com>
Hi!
A few very minor points pointed out below, if you agree with these I can
fix them up when applying the patch. Othat than these it looks fine.
> diff --git a/lib/tst_capability.c b/lib/tst_capability.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..2b55849f7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/tst_capability.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2019 Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
> + */
> +
> +#include <string.h>
> +
> +#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_capability.h"
> +
> +#include "lapi/syscalls.h"
> +
> +/**
> + * Get the capabilities as decided by hdr.
> + *
> + * Note that the memory pointed to by data should be large enough to store two
> + * structs.
> + */
Shouldn't we put these comments into the header instead?
> +int tst_capget(struct tst_cap_user_header *hdr,
> + struct tst_cap_user_data *data)
> +{
> + return tst_syscall(__NR_capget, hdr, data);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Set the capabilities as decided by hdr and data
> + *
> + * Note that the memory pointed to by data should be large enough to store two
> + * structs.
> + */
> +int tst_capset(struct tst_cap_user_header *hdr,
> + const struct tst_cap_user_data *data)
> +{
> + return tst_syscall(__NR_capset, hdr, data);
> +}
> +
> +static void do_cap_drop(uint32_t *set, uint32_t mask, const struct tst_cap *cap)
> +{
> + if (*set & mask) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Dropping %s(%d)", cap->name, cap->id);
> + *set &= ~mask;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void do_cap_req(uint32_t *permitted, uint32_t *effective, uint32_t mask,
> + const struct tst_cap *cap)
> +{
> + if (!(*permitted & mask))
> + tst_brk(TCONF, "Need %s(%d)", cap->name, cap->id);
> +
> + if (!(*effective & mask)) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Permitting %s(%d)", cap->name, cap->id);
> + *effective |= mask;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Add, check or remove capabilities
> + *
> + * Takes a NULL terminated array of structs which describe whether some
> + * capabilities are needed or not.
> + *
> + * It will attempt to drop or add capabilities to the effective set. It will
> + * try to detect if this is needed and whether it can or can't be done. If it
> + * clearly can not add a privilege to the effective set then it will return
> + * TCONF. However it may fail for some other reason and return TBROK.
> + *
> + * This only tries to change the effective set. Some tests may need to change
> + * the inheritable and ambient sets, so that child processes retain some
> + * capability.
> + */
> +void tst_cap_action(struct tst_cap *cap)
> +{
> + struct tst_cap_user_header hdr = {
> + .version = 0x20080522,
> + .pid = tst_syscall(__NR_gettid),
> + };
> + struct tst_cap_user_data cur[2] = { {0} };
> + struct tst_cap_user_data new[2] = { {0} };
> + uint32_t act = cap->action;
> + uint32_t *pE = &new[CAP_TO_INDEX(cap->id)].effective;
> + uint32_t *pP = &new[CAP_TO_INDEX(cap->id)].permitted;
> + uint32_t mask = CAP_TO_MASK(cap->id);
> +
> + if (tst_capget(&hdr, cur))
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "tst_capget()");
> +
> + memcpy(new, cur, sizeof(new));
> +
> + switch (act) {
> + case TST_CAP_DROP:
> + do_cap_drop(pE, mask, cap);
> + break;
> + case TST_CAP_REQ:
> + do_cap_req(pP, pE, mask, cap);
> + break;
> + default:
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "Unrecognised action %d", cap->action);
> + }
> +
> + if (memcmp(cur, new, sizeof(new)) && tst_capset(&hdr, new))
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "tst_capset(%s)", cap->name);
This is a bit ugly I would prefer:
if (!memcmp(cur, new, sizeof(new))
return;
if (tst_capset(&hdr, new))
tst_brk(...);
> +}
> +
> +void tst_cap_setup(struct tst_cap *caps, unsigned int action_mask)
> +{
> + struct tst_cap *cap;
> +
> + for (cap = caps; cap->action; cap++) {
> + if (cap->action & action_mask)
> + tst_cap_action(cap);
> + }
> +}
> diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> index 39f261472..81f6d28f8 100644
> --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> @@ -891,11 +891,17 @@ static void do_test_setup(void)
> {
> main_pid = getpid();
>
> + if (tst_test->caps)
> + tst_cap_setup(tst_test->caps, TST_CAP_REQ);
> +
> if (tst_test->setup)
> tst_test->setup();
>
> if (main_pid != getpid())
> tst_brk(TBROK, "Runaway child in setup()!");
> +
> + if (tst_test->caps)
> + tst_cap_setup(tst_test->caps, TST_CAP_DROP);
> }
>
> static void do_cleanup(void)
> --
> 2.22.1
>
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-11 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-23 9:46 [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/2] capability: Introduce capability API Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-23 9:46 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/2] capability: library tests Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-29 21:18 ` Petr Vorel
2019-08-28 10:43 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/2] capability: Introduce capability API Li Wang
2019-08-28 11:58 ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-29 21:08 ` Petr Vorel
2019-08-30 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-09-04 12:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4 " Richard Palethorpe
2019-09-04 12:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4 2/2] capability: library tests Richard Palethorpe
2019-09-11 14:41 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2019-09-11 15:10 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4 1/2] capability: Introduce capability API Richard Palethorpe
2019-09-11 15:33 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190911144107.GA23680@rei.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox