Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:03:51 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@google.com>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] selftests/seccomp: Make kcmp() less required
Message-ID: <202006160902.E331FF1917@keescook>
References: <20200616032524.460144-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200616032524.460144-9-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200616145725.GJ2893648@cisco>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616145725.GJ2893648@cisco>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:57:25AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:25:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The seccomp tests are a bit noisy without CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE (due
> > to missing the kcmp() syscall). The seccomp tests are more accurate with
> > kcmp(), but it's not strictly required. Refactor the tests to use
> > alternatives (comparing fd numbers), and provide a central test for
> > kcmp() so there is a single XFAIL instead of many. Continue to produce
> > warnings for the other tests, though.
> > 
> > Additionally adds some more bad flag EINVAL tests to the addfd selftest.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> 
> This looks fine, but I wonder if this is enough motivation for taking
> kcmp() out of CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE guards?

Do you mean in the kernel? I'd rather not -- it's a relatively powerful
primitive. Maybe if there were other users needing it, but there doesn't
seem to have been much demand.

-- 
Kees Cook