Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 05:30:53PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> >
> > > There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signal
> >
> > Is this the only failing test?  Or are the rest of the selftests skipped
> > when this test fails, and no further tests are run, as seems to be shown
> > here:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CADnnUqcmDMRe1f+3jG8SPR6jRrnBsY8VVD70VbKEm0NqYeoicA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > For example, looking at the source, I'd naively expect to see the
> > user_notification_closed_listener test result -- which follows right
> > after the failing test in the selftest source.  But there aren't any
> > results?
> >
> > Also - could you follow up with the author of this failing test to see if
> > we can get some more clarity about what might be going wrong here?  It
> > appears that the failing test was added in commit 6a21cc50f0c7f ("seccomp:
> > add a return code to trap to userspace") by Tycho Andersen
> > <tycho@xxxxxxxx>.
>
> So, the original email says the riscv series is tested on top of 5.2-rc7,
> but just for fun, can you confirm that you're building a tree that includes
> 9dd3fcb0ab73 ("selftests/seccomp: Handle namespace failures gracefully")? I
> assume it does, but I suspect something similar is happening, where the
> environment is slightly different than expected and the test stalls.
>
> Does it behave the same way under emulation (i.e. can I hope to
> reproduce this myself?)

This was tested in 5.2-rc7 and later in 5.3-rc with the same behavior.
Also VM or physical HW doesn't matter, same result.

>
> --
> Kees Cook