* Re: Fw: seccomp selftest on s390 [not found] <OFECC5FAAD.3D356CD5-ONC1257EA8.003F3F5A-C1257EA8.003F4C0D@de.ibm.com> @ 2015-08-21 12:20 ` Jan Willeke 2015-08-21 16:56 ` Kees Cook 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Jan Willeke @ 2015-08-21 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kees Cook; +Cc: heicars2, Andy Lutomirski, LKML On Fri, 2015-08-20 at 23:33 , Kees Cook wrote: > Hi! > > I don't have access to s390 running a modern kernel, so I've not been able > to meaningfully run the seccomp selftest suite. In a quick review, I think > the following is close to the missing pieces, but I can't verify it. :) > > Can someone let me know if this works, or otherwise check that the > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp suite passes on s390? > > Thanks! > > -Kees > > --- seccomp_bpf.c.orig 2015-08-20 21:13:17.735789007 +0000 > +++ seccomp_bpf.c 2015-08-20 21:09:49.547879621 +0000 > @@ -1210,6 +1211,10 @@ > # 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[1] > +# define SYSCALL_RET gprs[2] > #else > # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and > syscalls" > #endif > @@ -1243,7 +1248,7 @@ > 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; > } > > -- > Kees Cook > Chrome OS Security > > Hi Kees, to compile the code warning free I added: @@ -1409,6 +1413,8 @@ 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 than I run the testcase on the linux next kernel, result: ./seccomp_bpf [==========] Running 48 tests from 1 test cases. ... [ OK ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_allowed [ RUN ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected seccomp_bpf.c:1386:TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected:Expected self->parent (2774548873216) == syscall(20) (686) seccomp_bpf.c:1387:TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected:Expected self->mypid (2946347565056) != syscall(20) (686) [ FAIL ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected [ RUN ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped [ OK ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped ... [ RUN ] TSYNC.two_siblings_not_under_filter [ OK ] TSYNC.two_siblings_not_under_filter [ RUN ] global.syscall_restart seccomp_bpf.c:2063:global.syscall_restart:Expected 168 (721554505728) == get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid) (14965540365812105216) seccomp_bpf.c:2104:global.syscall_restart:Expected 7 (30064771072) == ret (18446744072899020716) [ FAIL ] global.syscall_restart [==========] 46 / 48 tests passed. [ FAILED ] I hope that helps you. regards Jan Linux on z Systems Development ---------------------------------------------------- IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH, Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz, Geschäftsführung: Dirk WittkoppSitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Fw: seccomp selftest on s390 2015-08-21 12:20 ` Fw: seccomp selftest on s390 Jan Willeke @ 2015-08-21 16:56 ` Kees Cook 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Kees Cook @ 2015-08-21 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Willeke; +Cc: heicars2, Andy Lutomirski, LKML On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Jan Willeke <willeke@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-08-20 at 23:33 , Kees Cook wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I don't have access to s390 running a modern kernel, so I've not been able >> to meaningfully run the seccomp selftest suite. In a quick review, I think >> the following is close to the missing pieces, but I can't verify it. :) >> >> Can someone let me know if this works, or otherwise check that the >> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp suite passes on s390? >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Kees >> >> --- seccomp_bpf.c.orig 2015-08-20 21:13:17.735789007 +0000 >> +++ seccomp_bpf.c 2015-08-20 21:09:49.547879621 +0000 >> @@ -1210,6 +1211,10 @@ >> # 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[1] >> +# define SYSCALL_RET gprs[2] >> #else >> # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and >> syscalls" >> #endif >> @@ -1243,7 +1248,7 @@ >> 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; >> } >> >> -- >> Kees Cook >> Chrome OS Security >> >> > > > Hi Kees, > to compile the code warning free I added: > > @@ -1409,6 +1413,8 @@ 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 Ah, yes. Whoops that got left off my cut/paste. :) > > than I run the testcase on the linux next kernel, result: > > ./seccomp_bpf > [==========] Running 48 tests from 1 test cases. > ... > [ OK ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_allowed > [ RUN ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected > seccomp_bpf.c:1386:TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected:Expected > self->parent (2774548873216) == syscall(20) (686) > seccomp_bpf.c:1387:TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected:Expected self->mypid > (2946347565056) != syscall(20) (686) > [ FAIL ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_redirected > [ RUN ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped > [ OK ] TRACE_syscall.syscall_dropped > ... > [ RUN ] TSYNC.two_siblings_not_under_filter > [ OK ] TSYNC.two_siblings_not_under_filter > [ RUN ] global.syscall_restart > seccomp_bpf.c:2063:global.syscall_restart:Expected 168 (721554505728) == > get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid) (14965540365812105216) > seccomp_bpf.c:2104:global.syscall_restart:Expected 7 (30064771072) == > ret (18446744072899020716) > [ FAIL ] global.syscall_restart > [==========] 46 / 48 tests passed. > [ FAILED ] > > I hope that helps you. It does, thanks! 46 of 48 is very close. :) I'll study this output to see if I can figure out what's needed next. -Kees > > regards Jan > > Linux on z Systems Development > ---------------------------------------------------- > IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH, Vorsitzende des > Aufsichtsrats: > Martina Koederitz, Geschäftsführung: Dirk WittkoppSitz der Gesellschaft: > Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 > -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-08-21 16:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <OFECC5FAAD.3D356CD5-ONC1257EA8.003F3F5A-C1257EA8.003F4C0D@de.ibm.com>
2015-08-21 12:20 ` Fw: seccomp selftest on s390 Jan Willeke
2015-08-21 16:56 ` Kees Cook
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®