This 3 patch series consists of fixes to proc_filter test
found during linun-next testing.
The first patch fixes the LKFT reported compile error, second
one adds .gitignore and the third fixes error paths to skip
instead of fail (root check, and argument checks)
Shuah Khan (3):
selftests:connector: Fix Makefile to include KHDR_INCLUDES
selftests:connector: Add .gitignore and poupulate it with test
selftests:connector: Add root check and fix arg error paths to skip
tools/testing/selftests/connector/.gitignore | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/connector/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/connector/.gitignore
--
2.39.2
proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
error legs.
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (argc > 2) {
printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
- exit(1);
+ exit(KSFT_SKIP);
}
if (argc == 2) {
@@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
filter = 1;
} else {
printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
- exit(1);
+ exit(KSFT_SKIP);
}
}
+ if (geteuid()) {
+ printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
+ exit(KSFT_SKIP);
+ }
+
if (filter) {
input.event_type = PROC_EVENT_NONZERO_EXIT;
input.mcast_op = PROC_CN_MCAST_LISTEN;
--
2.39.2
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
> error legs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>
> if (argc > 2) {
> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
> - exit(1);
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> }
>
> if (argc == 2) {
> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> filter = 1;
> } else {
> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
> - exit(1);
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> }
> }
>
> + if (geteuid()) {
> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
> +
I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
Anjali
> if (filter) {
> input.event_type = PROC_EVENT_NONZERO_EXIT;
> input.mcast_op = PROC_CN_MCAST_LISTEN;
> --
> 2.39.2
>
On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>> error legs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>
>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>> - exit(1);
>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>> filter = 1;
>>> } else {
>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>> - exit(1);
>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>
>
> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
> I had to run it as root.
>
The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
user:
bind failed: Operation not permitted
thanks,
-- Shuah
On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>> error legs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>
>> if (argc > 2) {
>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>> - exit(1);
>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> }
>>
>> if (argc == 2) {
>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> filter = 1;
>> } else {
>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>> - exit(1);
>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + if (geteuid()) {
>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> + }
>> +
>
> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>
It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
I had to run it as root.
thanks,
-- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>> error legs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>
>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>> - exit(1);
>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>> filter = 1;
>>>> } else {
>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>> - exit(1);
>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>
>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>> I had to run it as root.
>
> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
> user:
>
> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>
Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
So this check for root needs to be removed.
Anjali
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>
>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>
>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>> I had to run it as root.
>>
>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>> user:
>>
>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>
>
> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>
I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
That sounds like a problem if the test can be run by non-root user and
it should fail if kernel doesn't have the feature included. I would
think the bind() should fail for root and non-root users.
The bind() failure should be skip if it is an indication of feature
not being supported on the kernel.
thanks,
-- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>
>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>
>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>> user:
>>>
>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>
>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>
> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>
> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>
I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
> That sounds like a problem if the test can be run by non-root user and
> it should fail if kernel doesn't have the feature included. I would
> think the bind() should fail for root and non-root users.
>
> The bind() failure should be skip if it is an indication of feature
> not being supported on the kernel.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
On 7/28/23 16:40, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>>> user:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>>
>>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>>
>>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>>
>>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>>
>> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
>> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
>> installed on it?
>>
>
> It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
>
Okay. Sorry I am unable to follow this explanation. This test has just
been added in commit 73a29531f45fed6423144057d7a844aae46dad9d
Can you please look at the usage for this test:
- What should happen when kernel without filtering is run as
root or non-root
- What should happen when kernel with filtering is run as
root or non-root
There seems to be difference in behavior of this test depending
on user privileges. This should reflect in the message the user
sees.
This message "bind failed: Operation not permitted" doesn't tell
user anything - add a better message. Also this needs to be a skip
and not fail.
I just sent v2 without the root check.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>
>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>> user:
>>>>
>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>
>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>
>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>
>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>
>
> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>
Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
installed on it?
thanks,
-- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 16:40, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>>>> user:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>>>
>>>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>>>
>>> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
>>> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
>>> installed on it?
>>>
>> It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
>
> Okay. Sorry I am unable to follow this explanation. This test has just
> been added in commit 73a29531f45fed6423144057d7a844aae46dad9d
Yes, the test has been added just now, but it also tests kernels previous to the new feature addition. So it is adding a selftest to kernels previous to this commit.
That is, the connector module in kernel (before my changes) was sending to a listener user process messages for all process events - fork, exit, exec etc. This was only being done if the user process was run as root.
With my changes, we add filtering based on an option added by user, which filters based on input and gives back to the user only fork, or only exit, or a combination of those. This is a new feature added. In addition to this filtering, we have also made the change to allow user process to be non-root when receiving these messages.
>
> Can you please look at the usage for this test:
>
> - What should happen when kernel without filtering is run as
> root or non-root
By kernel without filtering you mean a kernel without my patches? In that case, it should run only as root - non-root should fail. In this case, it falls back to default behavior before my change, where listener user process gets all messages related to process events. I have not tested this a lot, I am working on testing this on a kernel without my changes.
> - What should happen when kernel with filtering is run as
> root or non-root
>
It should allow non-root user as well as root user to listen to events based on what they want to listen to.
> There seems to be difference in behavior of this test depending
> on user privileges. This should reflect in the message the user
> sees.
That’s because I am allowing this test to work with new changes as well as allow old method to work. Old method is invoked without any arguments supplied to this program. -f option invokes new filtering.
>
> This message "bind failed: Operation not permitted" doesn't tell
> user anything - add a better message. Also this needs to be a skip
> and not fail.
Will do.
>
> I just sent v2 without the root check.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
On 7/28/23 18:19, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/28/23 16:40, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>>>>> user:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>>>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>>>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>>>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
>>>> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
>>>> installed on it?
>>>>
>>> It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
>>
>> Okay. Sorry I am unable to follow this explanation. This test has just
>> been added in commit 73a29531f45fed6423144057d7a844aae46dad9d
>
> Yes, the test has been added just now, but it also tests kernels previous to the new feature addition. So it is adding a selftest to kernels previous to this commit.
> That is, the connector module in kernel (before my changes) was sending to a listener user process messages for all process events - fork, exit, exec etc. This was only being done if the user process was run as root.
> With my changes, we add filtering based on an option added by user, which filters based on input and gives back to the user only fork, or only exit, or a combination of those. This is a new feature added. In addition to this filtering, we have also made the change to allow user process to be non-root when receiving these messages.
>
>>
>> Can you please look at the usage for this test:
>>
>> - What should happen when kernel without filtering is run as
>> root or non-root
>
> By kernel without filtering you mean a kernel without my patches? In that case, it should run only as root - non-root should fail. In this case, it falls back to default behavior before my change, where listener user process gets all messages related to process events. I have not tested this a lot, I am working on testing this on a kernel without my changes.
>
Then you definitely need better messages when bind() fails
on kernels without the feature. It has to be clear to the
user why the test is exiting without running.
So this is what is needed:
- Check if the test can be run as non-root (whatever that means)
- It is still not clear to me if bind() fails does that mean the
kernel doesn't doesn't support the new feature.
Since this test essentially behaves differently when the feature
is supported vs. not. So it has to behave consistently somehow
checking for the feature and report correctly.
thanks,
-- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>> user:
>>>>>
>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>
>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>
>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>
>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>
> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
> installed on it?
>
It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
Anjali
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 5:32 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 18:19, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/28/23 16:40, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>>>>>> user:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>>>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>>>>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>>>>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>>>>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
>>>>> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
>>>>> installed on it?
>>>>>
>>>> It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
>>>
>>> Okay. Sorry I am unable to follow this explanation. This test has just
>>> been added in commit 73a29531f45fed6423144057d7a844aae46dad9d
>> Yes, the test has been added just now, but it also tests kernels previous to the new feature addition. So it is adding a selftest to kernels previous to this commit.
>> That is, the connector module in kernel (before my changes) was sending to a listener user process messages for all process events - fork, exit, exec etc. This was only being done if the user process was run as root.
>> With my changes, we add filtering based on an option added by user, which filters based on input and gives back to the user only fork, or only exit, or a combination of those. This is a new feature added. In addition to this filtering, we have also made the change to allow user process to be non-root when receiving these messages.
>>>
>>> Can you please look at the usage for this test:
>>>
>>> - What should happen when kernel without filtering is run as
>>> root or non-root
>> By kernel without filtering you mean a kernel without my patches? In that case, it should run only as root - non-root should fail. In this case, it falls back to default behavior before my change, where listener user process gets all messages related to process events. I have not tested this a lot, I am working on testing this on a kernel without my changes.
>
> Then you definitely need better messages when bind() fails
> on kernels without the feature. It has to be clear to the
> user why the test is exiting without running.
>
> So this is what is needed:
> - Check if the test can be run as non-root (whatever that means)
Not sure what you mean by this?
> - It is still not clear to me if bind() fails does that mean the
> kernel doesn't doesn't support the new feature.
It means you need to be root to run the program - this is the expected behavior on kernels which do not have my change(to allow non-root access). So, today if you wrote a program to test basic connector code without filtering(without my changes) - this is how it would respond. This is a check in the kernel(without my changes) which makes bind fail if user is non-root. With my change this change has been effectively removed.
Anjali
>
> Since this test essentially behaves differently when the feature
> is supported vs. not. So it has to behave consistently somehow
> checking for the feature and report correctly.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
> On Jul 28, 2023, at 5:32 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/23 18:19, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/28/23 16:40, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 3:25 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:59, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 15:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 13:06, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/23 12:10, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> proc_filter test requires root privileges. Add root privilege check
>>>>>>>>>>>> and skip the test. Also fix argument parsing paths to skip in their
>>>>>>>>>>>> error legs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 4fe8c6763fd8..7b2081b98e5c 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc > 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (argc == 2) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -256,10 +256,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>>>>>>> filter = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>> printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> - exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (geteuid()) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> + printf("Connector test requires root privileges.\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure why you have added this check? proc_filter does not need root privilege to run.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It failed for me when I ran it saying it requires root privileges.
>>>>>>>>>> I had to run it as root.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following is what I see when I run the test as non-root
>>>>>>>>> user:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bind failed: Operation not permitted
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that’s expected on a kernel which does not have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest installed on it.
>>>>>>>> So this check for root needs to be removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will send v2 for this patch without root check. I should have
>>>>>>> split the argument error paths and root check anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, what is strange is if the test run by root, bind() doesn't fail.
>>>>>>> This doesn't make sense to me based on what you said about bind() fails
>>>>>>> if kernel doesn't support the new feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn’t say that - part of the changes introduced by the patches is to remove the root check and add some features on top of existing code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. So what should happen if a root user runs this test on a kernel
>>>>> that doesn't have the kernel patches submitted with this selftest
>>>>> installed on it?
>>>>>
>>>> It will default to the behavior previous to my changes - that is it will report all events as opposed to a subset of events (which is the new feature added by my change)
>>>
>>> Okay. Sorry I am unable to follow this explanation. This test has just
>>> been added in commit 73a29531f45fed6423144057d7a844aae46dad9d
>> Yes, the test has been added just now, but it also tests kernels previous to the new feature addition. So it is adding a selftest to kernels previous to this commit.
>> That is, the connector module in kernel (before my changes) was sending to a listener user process messages for all process events - fork, exit, exec etc. This was only being done if the user process was run as root.
>> With my changes, we add filtering based on an option added by user, which filters based on input and gives back to the user only fork, or only exit, or a combination of those. This is a new feature added. In addition to this filtering, we have also made the change to allow user process to be non-root when receiving these messages.
>>>
>>> Can you please look at the usage for this test:
>>>
>>> - What should happen when kernel without filtering is run as
>>> root or non-root
>> By kernel without filtering you mean a kernel without my patches? In that case, it should run only as root - non-root should fail. In this case, it falls back to default behavior before my change, where listener user process gets all messages related to process events. I have not tested this a lot, I am working on testing this on a kernel without my changes.
>
> Then you definitely need better messages when bind() fails
> on kernels without the feature. It has to be clear to the
> user why the test is exiting without running.
>
> So this is what is needed:
> - Check if the test can be run as non-root (whatever that means)
> - It is still not clear to me if bind() fails does that mean the
> kernel doesn't doesn't support the new feature.
>
> Since this test essentially behaves differently when the feature
> is supported vs. not. So it has to behave consistently somehow
> checking for the feature and report correctly.
Yes, that is intentional. When the feature is supported, we allow non-root access, which is part of what the feature added. If not supported (older kernel) then only root access allowed. Since I am supporting both modes in same program, it will behave differently.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
Hello:
This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:29:25 -0600 you wrote:
> This 3 patch series consists of fixes to proc_filter test
> found during linun-next testing.
>
> The first patch fixes the LKFT reported compile error, second
> one adds .gitignore and the third fixes error paths to skip
> instead of fail (root check, and argument checks)
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [next,1/3] selftests:connector: Fix Makefile to include KHDR_INCLUDES
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/165f6890586e
- [next,2/3] selftests:connector: Add .gitignore and poupulate it with test
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/f4dcfa6fa1a8
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html