[11/11] selftests/seccomp: Add powerpc support

Wire up the syscall number and regs so the tests work on powerpc.

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Wire up the syscall number and regs so the tests work on powerpc.

This patch begs the question: this passes everything? (I was reminded
about syscall_restart while reading the patches. If everything passes,
it looks like powerpc exposes syscall_restart? Seems like ARM remains
the odd-arch-out on this. :P)

Thanks!

-Kees

>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 2303a8dff9a2..a004b4cce99e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>  #include <linux/filter.h>
>  #include <sys/prctl.h>
>  #include <sys/ptrace.h>
> +#include <sys/types.h>
>  #include <sys/user.h>
>  #include <linux/prctl.h>
>  #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> @@ -1205,6 +1206,10 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_poke, getpid_runs_normally)
>  # define ARCH_REGS     struct user_pt_regs
>  # define SYSCALL_NUM   regs[8]
>  # define SYSCALL_RET   regs[0]
> +#elif defined(__powerpc__)
> +# define ARCH_REGS     struct pt_regs
> +# define SYSCALL_NUM   gpr[0]
> +# define SYSCALL_RET   gpr[3]
>  #else
>  # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and syscalls"
>  #endif
> @@ -1238,7 +1243,7 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
>         ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, tracee, NT_PRSTATUS, &iov);
>         EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>
> -#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__powerpc__)
>         {
>                 regs.SYSCALL_NUM = syscall;
>         }
> @@ -1402,6 +1407,8 @@ TEST_F(TRACE_syscall, syscall_dropped)
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 383
>  # elif defined(__aarch64__)
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 277
> +# elif defined(__powerpc__)
> +#  define __NR_seccomp 358
>  # else
>  #  warning "seccomp syscall number unknown for this architecture"
>  #  define __NR_seccomp 0xffff
> --
> 2.1.0
>

On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 11:59 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> > Wire up the syscall number and regs so the tests work on powerpc.
> 
> This patch begs the question: this passes everything? 

Doh, yes that would have been worth mentioning! :)

I'll update it before I commit it.

Yes everything passes, thanks very much for the tests BTW.

And for the record I've tested on: ppc64, ppc64 (compat), ppc64le,
ppc, ppc64e and ppc64e (compat).

> (I was reminded about syscall_restart while reading the patches. If
> everything passes, it looks like powerpc exposes syscall_restart? Seems like
> ARM remains the odd-arch-out on this. :P)

Yeah I noticed that and though "oh jeez not syscall_restart", but it seems to
pass, so I guess we behave in a standard fasion for once. I'll have a closer
look just to be sure before I merge.

cheers