Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:04 PM David Abdurachmanov
<david.abdurachmanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:30 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> >
> > > There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signal
> >
> > Is this the only failing test?  Or are the rest of the selftests skipped
> > when this test fails, and no further tests are run, as seems to be shown
> > here:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CADnnUqcmDMRe1f+3jG8SPR6jRrnBsY8VVD70VbKEm0NqYeoicA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Yes, it's a single test failing. After removing global.user_notification_signal
> test everything else pass and you get the results printed.
>
> >
> > For example, looking at the source, I'd naively expect to see the
> > user_notification_closed_listener test result -- which follows right
> > after the failing test in the selftest source.  But there aren't any
> > results?
>
> Yes, it hangs at this point. You have to manually terminate it.
>
> >
> > Also - could you follow up with the author of this failing test to see if
> > we can get some more clarity about what might be going wrong here?  It
> > appears that the failing test was added in commit 6a21cc50f0c7f ("seccomp:
> > add a return code to trap to userspace") by Tycho Andersen
> > <tycho@xxxxxxxx>.
>
> Well the code states ".. and hope that it doesn't break when there
> is actually a signal :)". Maybe we are just unlucky. I don't have results
> from other architectures to compare.
>
> I found that Linaro is running selftests, but SECCOMP is disabled
> and thus it's failing. Is there another CI which tracks selftests?
>
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-oe/tests/kselftest/seccomp_seccomp_bpf?top=next-20190823

Actually it seems that seccomp is enabled in kernel, but not in
systemd, and somehow seccomp_bpf is missing on all arches thus
causing automatic failure.

> >
> >
> > - Paul



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux