Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191228014837.GA31774@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
 <20191228181825.GB6746@cisco> <CAMp4zn91GoB=1eTbc_ux4eNs2-QFm+JocodgFQYUiiXL7H4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191229001818.GC6746@cisco>
In-Reply-To: <20191229001818.GC6746@cisco>
From:   Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:14:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMp4zn9s1wJyb9xHj4xYL5HTtM=gA07ZfBGTSW5j4ayUzaoZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] samples, selftests/seccomp: Zero out seccomp_notif
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 07:10:29PM -0500, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I know it's unrelated, but it's probably worth sending a patch to fix
> > > this to be sizes.seccomp_notif_resp instead of sizeof(*resp), since if
> > > the kernel is older this will over-zero things. I can do that, or you
> > > can add the patch to this series, just let me know which.
> >
> > I was thinking about this, and initially, I chose to make the smaller
> > change. I think it might make more sense to combine the patch,
> > given that the memset behaviour is "incorrect" if we do it based on
> > sizeof(*req), or sizeof(*resp).
> >
> > I'll go ahead and respin this patch with the change to call memset
> > based on sizes.
>
> I think it would be good to keep it as a separate patch, since it's an
> unrelated bug fix. That way if we have to revert these because of some
> breakage, we won't lose the fix.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tycho

As I was doing this, I noticed that the self-tests all use hard-coded struct
sizes. When I was playing with extending the API, all of a sudden all the
self-tests started failing (until I recompiled them against newer headers).

Should we also change the self-tests to operate against the seccomp
sizes API, or was it intentional for the self-tests hard-coded the struct
definitions, and locked to the kernel version?