On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > 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. :) Adding release checks to selftests is going to problematic for maintenance. Tests should fail gracefully if feature isn't supported in older kernels. Several tests do that now and please find a way to check for dependencies and feature availability and fail the test gracefully. If there is a test that can't do that for some reason, we can discuss it, but as a general rule, I don't want to see kselftest patches that check release. thanks, -- Shuah -- 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
