On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:46:07PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:41:51AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:08:58AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > > > + EXPECT_EQ(ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND, &resp), 0); > > > + > > > + nextid = req.id + 1; > > > + > > > + /* Wait for getppid to be called for the second time */ > > > + sleep(1); > > > > I always rebel at finding "sleep" in tests. ;) Is this needed? IIUC, > > userspace will immediately see EINPROGRESS after the NOTIF_SEND > > finishes, yes? > > > > Otherwise, yes, this looks good. > > > > -- > > Kees Cook > I'm open to better suggestions, but there's a race where if getppid > is not called before the second SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD is called, > you will just get an ENOENT, since the notification ID is not found. Ah, I see. The goal is to test the -EINPROGRESS here. If you use write() instead of getppid(), and write to a socket, will that work? The parent can block for the read, and once some thing has been read it can test for -EINPROGRESS. The user_notification_signal test does something similar. Tycho
