Hi Andy, On 24 June 2017 at 10:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a >> design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace. After determining >> that fixing it solved a bunch of problems and didn't break any user >> programs, we fixed it. There might be new code that relies on the fix >> being present in the sense that it would be insecure without the fix. >> >> The problem is that the fix is moderately intrusive and doesn't seem >> like a great candidate for backporting, although we could plausibly do >> it. > > That's fine, not all bugfixes that tests are created to find, should be > backported. That's up to the stable maintainers, or someone who has a > device/vendor tree based on that kernel if they want to do that or not. > > That has nothing to do with the fact that the test should fail or > gracefully degrade. Tests should fail if the action that they are > testing fails. They should degrade and not run if the _feature_ they > are testing is not present. So, any updates on this yet - getting the seccomp tests to degrade gracefully? I realise you mentioned that the fix could be intrusive; just wanted to know if it was on your radar still. > > Yes, sometimes this is hard, like with the seccomp stuff, and will not > always work, but that's the rule for our userspace api independant of > any testing framework or code. > > Look at xfstests, no one gets mad when it adds a new test that old > kernels fail at. It's up to someone else to either backport the kernel > change, if they want it fixed in an old kernel, not to have xfstests > just not run it at all! There's nothing different here either. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Thanks much, Sumit. -- 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
