lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Kees Cook wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:30 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:39:50AM -0700, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > > > I don't have the a build with SECCOMP for the board right now, so it
> > > > will have to wait. I just finished a new kernel (almost rc6) for Fedora,
> > >
> > > FWIW, I don't think this should block landing the code: all the tests
> > > fail without seccomp support. ;) So this patch is an improvement!
> >
> > Am sympathetic to this -- we did it with the hugetlb patches for RISC-V --
> > but it would be good to understand a little bit more about why the test
> > fails before we merge it.
>
> The test is almost certainly failing due to the environmental
> requirements (i.e. namespaces, user ids, etc). There are some corner
> cases in there that we've had to fix in the past. If the other tests
> are passing, then I would expect all the seccomp internals are fine --
> it's just the case being weird. It's just a matter of figuring out
> what state the test environment is in so we can cover that corner case
> too.
>
> > Once we merge the patch, it will probably reduce the motivation for others
> > to either understand and fix the underlying problem with the RISC-V code
> > -- or, if it truly is a flaky test, to drop (or fix) the test in the
> > seccomp_bpf kselftests.
>
> Sure, I get that point -- but I don't want to block seccomp landing
> for riscv for that. I suggested to David offlist that the test could
> just be marked with a FIXME XFAIL on riscv and once someone's in a
> better position to reproduce it we can fix it. (I think the test bug
> is almost certainly not riscv specific, but just some missing
> requirement that we aren't handling correctly.)

OK. It might be nice to mark the seccomp_bpf.c test as flaky in the
comments for the test.

> How does that sound?

Let's follow your plan. Thanks for your review and feedback.


- Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-05 03:25    [W:0.070 / U:1.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site