Re: [PATCH] procfs: block chmod on /proc/thread-self/comm

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > index 486334981e60..08f0969208eb 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > @@ -580,6 +580,10 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> >  		CASE_TEST(chmod_net);         EXPECT_SYSZR(proc, chmod("/proc/self/net", 0555)); break;
> >  		CASE_TEST(chmod_self);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self", 0555), -1, EPERM); break;
> >  		CASE_TEST(chown_self);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chown("/proc/self", 0, 0), -1, EPERM); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(chmod_self_comm);   EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self/comm", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(chmod_tid_comm);    EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/thread-self/comm", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(chmod_self_environ);EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self/environ", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(chmod_tid_environ); EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/thread-self/environ", 0777), -1, EPERM); break;

> 
> I'm not a big fan of this, it abuses the nolibc testsuite to test core
> kernel functionality.

Yes, this should be dropped.
We need a minimal patch to fix this. This just makes backporting harder
and any test doesn't need to be backported.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux