On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kees, Andy, > > On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >> feature and test together. >> - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the >> 'feature' could be a candidate for stable backports, but Arnd tried >> that, and it was quite non-trivial. So perhaps we'll need some help >> from the subsystem developers here. > > Could you please help us sort this out? Our goal is to help Greg with > testing stable kernels, and currently the seccomp tests fail due to > missing feature (seccomp ptrace hole closure) getting tested via > latest kselftest. > > If you feel the feature isn't a stable candidate, then could you > please help make the test degrade gracefully in its absence? I don't really want to have that change be a backport -- it's quite invasive across multiple architectures. I would say just add a kernel version check to the test. This is probably not the only selftest that will need such things. :) I'd be happy to review such changes! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
