diff mbox

[6/8] seccomp: Selftest for detection of filter flag support

Message ID 1503702511-25683-7-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Tyler Hicks Aug. 25, 2017, 11:08 p.m. UTC 
Userspace needs to be able to reliably detect the support of a filter
flag. A good way of doing that is by attempting to enter filter mode,
with the flag bit(s) in question set, and a NULL pointer for the args
parameter of seccomp(2). EFAULT indicates that the flag is valid and
EINVAL indicates that the flag is invalid.

This patch adds a selftest that can be used to test this method of
detection in userspace.

Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
(cherry picked from commit 2b7ea5b5b5799f2878ed454bb48032bed6d101d3 linux-next)
---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 9706aea..d9caebd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -1787,6 +1787,66 @@  TEST(seccomp_syscall_mode_lock)
 	}
 }
 
+/*
+ * Test detection of known and unknown filter flags. Userspace needs to be able
+ * to check if a filter flag is supported by the current kernel and a good way
+ * of doing that is by attempting to enter filter mode, with the flag bit in
+ * question set, and a NULL pointer for the _args_ parameter. EFAULT indicates
+ * that the flag is valid and EINVAL indicates that the flag is invalid.
+ */
+TEST(detect_seccomp_filter_flags)
+{
+	unsigned int flags[] = { SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC };
+	unsigned int flag, all_flags;
+	int i;
+	long ret;
+
+	/* Test detection of known-good filter flags */
+	for (i = 0, all_flags = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flags); i++) {
+		flag = flags[i];
+		ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+		ASSERT_NE(ENOSYS, errno) {
+			TH_LOG("Kernel does not support seccomp syscall!");
+		}
+		EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+		EXPECT_EQ(EFAULT, errno) {
+			TH_LOG("Failed to detect that a known-good filter flag (0x%X) is supported!",
+			       flag);
+		}
+
+		all_flags |= flag;
+	}
+
+	/* Test detection of all known-good filter flags */
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, all_flags, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EFAULT, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that all known-good filter flags (0x%X) are supported!",
+		       all_flags);
+	}
+
+	/* Test detection of an unknown filter flag */
+	flag = -1;
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that an unknown filter flag (0x%X) is unsupported!",
+		       flag);
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Test detection of an unknown filter flag that may simply need to be
+	 * added to this test
+	 */
+	flag = flags[ARRAY_SIZE(flags) - 1] << 1;
+	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
+	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
+	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {
+		TH_LOG("Failed to detect that an unknown filter flag (0x%X) is unsupported! Does a new flag need to be added to this test?",
+		       flag);
+	}
+}
+
 TEST(TSYNC_first)
 {
 	struct sock_filter filter[] = {