On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:57:25AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:25:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > The seccomp tests are a bit noisy without CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE (due > > to missing the kcmp() syscall). The seccomp tests are more accurate with > > kcmp(), but it's not strictly required. Refactor the tests to use > > alternatives (comparing fd numbers), and provide a central test for > > kcmp() so there is a single XFAIL instead of many. Continue to produce > > warnings for the other tests, though. > > > > Additionally adds some more bad flag EINVAL tests to the addfd selftest. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks fine, but I wonder if this is enough motivation for taking > kcmp() out of CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE guards? Do you mean in the kernel? I'd rather not -- it's a relatively powerful primitive. Maybe if there were other users needing it, but there doesn't seem to have been much demand. -- Kees Cook
