selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing (4c6614dc) · Commits · 戴 / test

There should be no difference between -1 and other negative syscalls while tracing. Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com> Signed-off-by:

Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by:

Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c

+26 −0

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -1903,6 +1903,32 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(TRACE_syscall)
		teardown_trace_fixture(_metadata, self->tracer);
		}

		TEST(negative_ENOSYS)
		{
		/* Untraced negative syscalls should return ENOSYS. */
		errno = 0;
		EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-1));
		EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
		errno = 0;
		EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-101));
		EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
		}

		TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, negative_ENOSYS)
		{
		/*
		* There should be no difference between an "internal" skip
		* and userspace asking for syscall "-1".
		*/
		errno = 0;
		EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-1));
		EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
		/* And no difference for "still not valid but not -1". */
		errno = 0;
		EXPECT_EQ(-1, syscall(-101));
		EXPECT_EQ(errno, ENOSYS);
		}

		TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, syscall_allowed)
		{
		/* getppid works as expected (no changes). */

Admin message