lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Actually sleep for 1/10th second
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:13 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:44 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Clang noticed that some none-zero sleep()s were actually using zero
> > > anyway. This switches to nanosleep() to gain sub-second granularity.
> > >
> > > seccomp_bpf.c:2625:9: warning: implicit conversion from 'double' to
> > > 'unsigned int' changes value from 0.1 to 0 [-Wliteral-conversion]
> > > sleep(0.1);
> > > ~~~~~ ^~~
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 5 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > > index 067cb4607d6c..a9f278c13f13 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > > @@ -2569,6 +2569,7 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_not_under_filter)
> > > {
> > > long ret, sib;
> > > void *status;
> > > + struct timespec delay = { .tv_nsec = 100000000 };
> >
> > "Omitted fields are implicitly initialized the same as for objects
> > that have static storage duration."
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Designated-Inits.html
> > https://godbolt.org/z/cuGqxM
> > (So this wont sleep an arbitrary amount of seconds, phew)
>
> Yup. :) Even an empty initializer works ... = { };
> (Except that padding bytes aren't always included in the zeroing...)
>
> >
> > >
> > > ASSERT_EQ(0, prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)) {
> > > TH_LOG("Kernel does not support PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS!");
> > > @@ -2622,7 +2623,7 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_not_under_filter)
> > > EXPECT_EQ(SIBLING_EXIT_UNKILLED, (long)status);
> > > /* Poll for actual task death. pthread_join doesn't guarantee it. */
> > > while (!kill(self->sibling[sib].system_tid, 0))
> > > - sleep(0.1);
> > > + nanosleep(&delay, NULL);
> > > /* Switch to the remaining sibling */
> > > sib = !sib;
> > >
> > > @@ -2647,7 +2648,7 @@ TEST_F(TSYNC, two_siblings_not_under_filter)
> > > EXPECT_EQ(0, (long)status);
> > > /* Poll for actual task death. pthread_join doesn't guarantee it. */
> > > while (!kill(self->sibling[sib].system_tid, 0))
> > > - sleep(0.1);
> > > + nanosleep(&delay, NULL);
> >
> > Interesting bug. If the sleeps weren't doing anything, are they even
> > needed? Does adding the tests cause them to continue to pass, or start
> > to fail? If they weren't doing anything, and the tests were passing,
> > maybe it's just better to remove them?
>
> It was just spinning.

So this test has been broken? If so, do you know for how long? Or
who's monitoring them? Either way, thanks for noticing and fixing.

+Guenter; did you notice if this test was failing? Are your boot tests
running kselftests?

> This restores the intention of not being so
> aggressive in the wait loop. While the sleep could be removed, that
> wasn't the intention.

Oh, yeah I guess the comment above it about pthread_join is relevant.
I just get highly highly suspicious whenever I see sleeps added to any
code.
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-27 20:37    [W:0.057 / U:5.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site