From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa2-f12.google.com (mail-oa2-f12.google.com [74.125.231.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6CD12ED141 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.231.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790209470; cv=none; b=TOW1ulG7V+r9Gj7URmCQ4ixLd88x0XiaQoEeE2Q+aAXP/6TaOY0rMX++xSeiC/kYzPBVQZ+N3xfyJ0AOkD2fSZQbOskqKJ0tRy/bWeja9yOTKIPQTSD3KLrZEv19VjoWctan8eb6t/ZMD9rMtHy0hhu+K10XyZrKTHywyUIxLeI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790209470; c=relaxed/simple; bh=O1qzz4udeaHiCBtWLNhPqgQhh0np6y2v1Qblzap4ubo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u8oxIrgQ9C8yMEzWQnXnAH7LO5HszFf9B9UD17dxmyAxQDY6Zh12c7Bc8zPpRTmQ8vOiIrsBvdq0dVyAtJk9mlH1H+j3lzEmmYNK/4eb5cYUCKYRC7uK2KsWdmeSMOM61k7qRZWJB4su1KbNcZotsGsSdvXe5qwA+T9vSXeXapg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=tLKAduNk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.231.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="tLKAduNk" Received: by mail-oa2-f12.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-46accbdfb21so1372757fac.1 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:24:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1790209467; x=1790814267; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=VaNhGxWDXoFu7JrvArFM0xuuSaYLknf+AiNAGeHpOlc=; b=tLKAduNk74m4FZjjhHyzJ7fyOjIvZHucIau8VQ5rD/nN4RbPwE2KwfNNPDW9tAwSF8 DFyZUHBaAS3+7eJL6drUNF+dTQAKK32oP3dSuSFObyw9kyP8ETaDSPr2Qn9rjc9LNN7I k09EwSLr72mZSIqxmv3/OI4v5K0k7hDz7aNhxwUf6lKAspHuzzuYkoW9M1FFKOYsN/Ih BIk3pf2N/phxsZlKSXQrvj4scX7TZRrfaE5lbSvf9mH/DeKwh0Z/IKG/hz8c4IzdbE9Q bCUbvaODcmTGNAiAOdOrXtD5IIbaNtv9u/WlOn5X7q+Ngs17BSusJ2QLjhHOFEPerAW3 qi0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790209467; x=1790814267; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=VaNhGxWDXoFu7JrvArFM0xuuSaYLknf+AiNAGeHpOlc=; b=JtM4FcfRB1ITsFChi2pnuy916MjcHndZQNMmkbgcx4bYK19MBa+S0EmeW3QPlYdjiE +qMI4cuacmU6kLmSOLDiKgT0h5KrxEdBCEQHmtONi7vEUGl9ikY8BLhlCuxgbwq5uqf1 9tmoA5qiQ8HUHkmUsxx2SZP4JyCntqIsCAi0npsSw03RAGAGUx0diZ7u87zz56/qGKYp +bICsGc6DMnMrjUVKIMrjGVVpFoy2FmGmtCTFMxRlPs7ELTqXJ4xe3V/grwUkq3vxxLG rp6rOWH0XIqgpZ0WzJBGo7BS+p8k3MTVqZ+EvTnvOSqvhRISjiQnsPlEmbwxtxH0xG5J bwQQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzG7kWqToqWhMbXgg1lV/qg+9A6nga6zaxWEz3vco2kYUTFZ6vkqeuoMjOmR9fA1ouCq46LqHeBQcp8Snc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++lyc+vsh1jbjUJHHPQWqysm3NRnvvrIpLDJep8xIu077KeLeR8Q CHyEEZQ1yMErEc3rflKlHbIgg8ZK4rJ/g7Ph/wouvYvQ/kURh9XSPeUO X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2H2jIsPA4NYTUNH3u745Rie94cvvN6hZSnH0zZPnGloQNRkbDaTnYULfHYD/x XfFLmhoE0FDDmMYxwqPPJY3lXeOrurq/dufpQ8u6knV2/NYdfOwwh6UvygNUNErtYwyVHJGZfMR /S8wo4GDLzcAmGoGevCYD7luAeeK9MnBjwFw+3pPZm5XNknKctE5V+Rtjo24zS5k+PkpXtgoatp vFrlRiZ8BdWlZs/5jfL70GIV7xVKbe3R7E0Hii5xPB+g2b98CKTPEqjOIK89YWKjaC4YRTtz1OB FRpzqy7q91O/0KiBoNqUEkuPJVfdMonFecZc5LlvuePrBio5UAfjXah0ib9QDz9ywZen/Yvrp/c LTDWmyQqKDz8BObXsjduQGFmTqQ4IBsI69cD5AYTFs5Ou/SScjrVrfNr7+qaPPFjxl5CgsOB5KX UtHfpZVL04gqY6c13YLgUriO836o3p9Z/3cUwvfxsL69t5GcfF0OqQ7kjMBR+HHZrv34VQlpyUA H2tweQF+rzFiH5cX38= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1994:b0:4d6:9355:7543 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4d731545ff8mr956682b6e.62.1790209466617; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from devvm29614.prn0.facebook.com ([2a03:2880:ff:f::]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5614622812f47-4d5c1b305b8sm3689133b6e.1.2026.09.23.17.24.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:24:21 -0700 From: Bobby Eshleman To: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org Cc: sgarzare@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, stefanha@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowangio@gmail.com, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, eperezma@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, donald.hunter@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sargun@sargun.me, jlinbox@meta.com, sdf.kernel@gmail.com, bobbyeshleman@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/6] selftests/vsock: test the netns assign privilege checks Message-ID: References: <20260921-vsock-guest-ns-v2-6-693bd78fde9e@meta.com> <179019126776.2160803.16648507383433583043@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <179019126776.2160803.16648507383433583043@kernel.org> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 07:21:07PM +0000, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote: > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential > issue(s) to consider. > > Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 1 > > If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each > issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong. > If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork > know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply > (one such reply per series is enough). > > - [Medium] Both new selftests > (`test_ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_no_cap_net_admin_fails`,… > - [Low] The two new shared-VM tests omit the `vm_reset_g2h()` cleanup > that every other ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_* test in USE_SHARED_VM… > > -- > > selftests/vsock: test the netns assign privilege checks > > Adds two vmtest.sh cases that attempt VSOCK_CMD_DEV_NETNS_SET without > CAP_NET_ADMIN and from an unprivileged user namespace, and enables > CONFIG_USER_NS in the vsock selftest config. > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vsock/vmtest.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/vsock/vmtest.sh > > index e94cc2fd90ccd..4f42bcdac3f6c 100755 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vsock/vmtest.sh > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vsock/vmtest.sh > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -187,6 +195,8 @@ readonly TEST_DESCS=( > > ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_host_connect_ok > > ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_reset_on_ns_delete_ok > > ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_old_conn_send_fails > > + ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_no_cap_net_admin_fails > > + ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_unpriv_user_ns_fails > > ) > > readonly NS_MODES=("local" "global") > > [Severity: Low] > Both new tests are added to USE_SHARED_VM but neither calls > vm_reset_g2h() on any exit path, unlike every other > ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_* test in that list. > > Should these follow the sibling pattern? If the privilege check under > test is broken, the assign succeeds and the guest's single g2h device is > left owned by the transient namespace created by unshare, while the > harness moves on to the next test in the same VM. > > The kernel does restore this by itself once that namespace is reaped: > > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c:vsock_g2h_net_reset() { > if (likely(rcu_access_pointer(vsock_g2h_net) != net)) > return; > > mutex_lock(&vsock_register_mutex); > if (rcu_access_pointer(vsock_g2h_net) == net) > rcu_assign_pointer(vsock_g2h_net, &init_net); > ... > } > > registered as .pre_exit in vsock_pernet_ops, and the next test's > vm_ns_assign_g2h() overwrites the pointer anyway. The residual window is > the asynchronous teardown that ..._reset_on_ns_delete_ok already documents > ("the namespace itself is dismantled from a workqueue, so the device does > not come back the same instant"). Since the new tests are appended last > in TEST_NAMES and USE_SHARED_VM, a default run is unaffected; this only > shows up with selective or reordered invocation. Yes, these tests should call it regardless. Relying on cleanup makes the pass/fail race-y. > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -1832,6 +1842,48 @@ test_ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_reset_on_ns_delete_ok() { > > return "${KSFT_PASS}" > > } > > > > +test_ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_no_cap_net_admin_fails() { > > + local cmd="unshare -n setpriv --bounding-set=-net_admin" > > + local rc > > + > > + vm_ssh "init_ns" -- "${cmd}" python3 /root/ynl/cli.py --no-schema \ > > + --spec /root/ynl/vsock.yaml --do dev-netns-set &>/dev/null > > + rc=$? > > + > > + if [[ "${rc}" -eq 0 ]]; then > > + log_host "assign unexpectedly succeeded without CAP_NET_ADMIN" > > + return "${KSFT_FAIL}" > > + fi > > + > > + return "${KSFT_PASS}" > > +} > > [Severity: Medium] > Can this test pass without the capability check ever being reached? The > only assertion is rc -eq 0 => FAIL, output is discarded with &>/dev/null, > and there is no positive control, so any nonzero status reads as > KSFT_PASS. > > A few concrete sources of a nonzero status that are not -EPERM: > > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c:vsock_nl_dev_netns_set_doit() { > int err = vsock_g2h_net_assign(genl_info_net(info)); > > if (err == -ENODEV) > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, > "no guest-to-host transport is loaded"); > else if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) > ... > } > > and cli.py collapses all of those to the same status as -EPERM: > > tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py:main() { > except NlError as e: > print(e) > sys.exit(1) > } > > vm_ssh() also returns ssh's own status, so a transport failure (255) or a > remote shell failure (127, e.g. an installed util-linux that does not > accept setpriv --bounding-set=-net_admin) is indistinguishable from the > expected refusal. A python-side failure such as a missing > /root/ynl/vsock.yaml exits 1 too. > > Would it be worth asserting the privileged case succeeds first? The file > already has the helper the sibling tests use as a precondition: > > vm_ns_assign_g2h() { > local ns=$1 > local nspid=$2 > > vm_ns_exec "${ns}" "${nspid}" "python3 /root/ynl/cli.py --no-schema \ > --spec /root/ynl/vsock.yaml --do dev-netns-set" > } > > On the changelog note "ynl's cli.py does not report the errno": is that > accurate? NlError.__str__() in tools/net/ynl/pyynl/lib/ynl.py does: > > msg += os.strerror(self.error) > > so the error string is printed and the test could match "Operation not > permitted" instead of sending everything to /dev/null. I considered this but felt like grepping stderr/stdout is somewhat unnatural. My plan was to later propose that cli.py returns the err via exit code, and then update these tests. First checking the privileged assign sounds like a reasonable middle ground to rule out the other error states. > > > + > > +test_ns_guest_assign_g2h_netns_unpriv_user_ns_fails() { > > + local unpriv_uid=65534 > > + local unpriv > > + local rc > > + > > + unpriv="setpriv --reuid=${unpriv_uid} --regid=${unpriv_uid}" > > + unpriv="${unpriv} --clear-groups" > > + > > + if ! vm_ssh "init_ns" -- "${unpriv} unshare -U true"; then > > + log_host "unprivileged user namespaces unavailable, skipping" > > + return "${KSFT_SKIP}" > > + fi > > + > > + vm_ssh "init_ns" -- "${unpriv} unshare -Urn" \ > > + python3 /root/ynl/cli.py --no-schema \ > > + --spec /root/ynl/vsock.yaml --do dev-netns-set &>/dev/null > > + rc=$? > > + > > + if [[ "${rc}" -eq 0 ]]; then > > + log_host "assign unexpectedly succeeded for unprivileged user" > > + return "${KSFT_FAIL}" > > + fi > > + > > + return "${KSFT_PASS}" > > +} > > [Severity: Medium] > Same rc != 0 => KSFT_PASS inference here, plus the availability probe is > not the command being measured: > > probe: ${unpriv} unshare -U true > measured: ${unpriv} unshare -Urn python3 /root/ynl/cli.py ... > > If the extra -r/-n setup or the python startup under uid 65534 fails, the > result is KSFT_PASS rather than KSFT_SKIP or KSFT_FAIL, and the child user > namespace never actually holds CAP_NET_ADMIN, which is the condition the > commit message says is being tested: > > the other confirms that CAP_NET_ADMIN in an unprivileged user ns > alone is insufficient. > > Would checking the reported error string, or asserting the privileged > assign works in the same test, make these two cases fail if > GENL_ADMIN_PERM is ever dropped from VSOCK_CMD_DEV_NETNS_SET? Yep, can follow the same approach as above.