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;
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:36:17 +0100
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@google.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests for
 BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM
Message-ID: <20200326133617.GC8575@chromium.org>
References: <20200325152629.6904-1-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20200325152629.6904-8-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <CAEf4BzbzfbTT9x3tfLrqhYgozcvxvHvKSVkvyuNqji=aNgvmZg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzbzfbTT9x3tfLrqhYgozcvxvHvKSVkvyuNqji=aNgvmZg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 25-M?r 19:01, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> >
> > * Load/attach a BPF program that hooks to file_mprotect (int)
> >   and bprm_committed_creds (void).
> > * Perform an action that triggers the hook.
> > * Verify if the audit event was received using the shared global
> >   variables for the process executed.
> > * Verify if the mprotect returns a -EPERM.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Florent Revest <revest@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config            |  2 +
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c       | 84 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c       | 48 +++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 134 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +int exec_cmd(int *monitored_pid)
> > +{
> > +       int child_pid;
> > +
> > +       child_pid = fork();
> > +       if (child_pid == 0) {
> > +               *monitored_pid = getpid();
> > +               execvp(CMD_ARGS[0], CMD_ARGS);
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       } else if (child_pid > 0)
> 
> This test is part of test_progs, so let's be a good citizen and wait
> for your specific child. I'd rather not hunt for elusive bugs later,
> so please use waitpid() instead.

Good idea. Done.

- KP

> 
> Otherwise looks good and clean, thanks!
> 
> > +               return wait(NULL);
> > +
> > +       return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> [...]