selftests/seccomp: Support glibc 2.26 siginfo_t.h

PATCH In review Kees Cook 3 participants 5 messages Sep 7, 2017 – Sep 20, 2017

Subsystems (2)

Kselftest Secure computing

lore

Share & tools

lore

Kees Cook

author

2017-09-07 23:32 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 selftests/seccomp: Support glibc 2.26 siginfo_t.h

The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old way needs to stay around for a while, though.

Reported-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>

Cc Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>

Cc Will Drewry <[email protected]>

Cc Shuah Khan <[email protected]>

Cc [email protected]

Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>

---
Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26 and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.

---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +13 -5

index 73f5ea6778ce..9380c3fc7cfe 100644
@@ -6,10 +6,18 @@
  */
 
 #include <sys/types.h>
-#include <asm/siginfo.h>
-#define __have_siginfo_t 1
-#define __have_sigval_t 1
-#define __have_sigevent_t 1
+
+/*
+ * glibc 2.26 and later have SIGSYS in siginfo_t. Before that,
+ * we need to use the kernel's siginfo.h file and trick glibc
+ * into accepting it.
+ */
+#if !__GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 26)
+# include <asm/siginfo.h>
+# define __have_siginfo_t 1
+# define __have_sigval_t 1
+# define __have_sigevent_t 1
+#endif
 
 #include <errno.h>
 #include <linux/filter.h>

@@ -676,7 +684,7 @@ TEST_F_SIGNAL(TRAP, ign, SIGSYS)
 	syscall(__NR_getpid);
 }
 
-static struct siginfo TRAP_info;
+static siginfo_t TRAP_info;
 static volatile int TRAP_nr;
 static void TRAP_action(int nr, siginfo_t *info, void *void_context)
 {

Signature · 6 lines

2.7.4


-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Seth Forshee

Tested-by on v1 1/1

2017-09-08 03:19 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook

The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old way needs to stay around for a while, though.
Reported-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Cc Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc Will Drewry <[email protected]>
Cc Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected]
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>

Quoted 4 lines

---
Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26 and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.

It builds and tests correctly for me too, with both glibc 2.26 and 2.24.

Tested-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>

Thanks!

Kees Cook

author

2017-09-08 03:36 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 17 lines · Seth Forshee

Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook
The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old way needs to stay around for a while, though.
Reported-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Cc Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc Will Drewry <[email protected]>
Cc Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected]
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines
---
Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26 and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.

Quoted 3 lines

It builds and tests correctly for me too, with both glibc 2.26 and 2.24.
Tested-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>

Awesome, thanks!

Shuah, is it possible to land this for v4.14? If it has to wait, that's probably okay, as I've marked it for -stable, so it'll get where it needs to be eventually. :)

Thanks!

-Kees

Signature · 2 lines

Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Kees Cook

author

2017-09-20 22:02 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 20 lines · Kees Cook

Quoted 19 lines · Seth Forshee
Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook
The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old way needs to stay around for a while, though.
Reported-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Cc Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc Will Drewry <[email protected]>
Cc Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected]
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines
---
Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26 and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.
It builds and tests correctly for me too, with both glibc 2.26 and 2.24.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 1 line
Tested-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Awesome, thanks!
Shuah, is it possible to land this for v4.14? If it has to wait, that's probably okay, as I've marked it for -stable, so it'll get where it needs to be eventually. :)

Friendly ping, Shuah, are you able to take this?

Thanks!

-Kees

Signature · 2 lines

Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Shuah Khan

maintainer

2017-09-20 22:42 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 29 lines · Kees Cook

Quoted 20 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 19 lines · Seth Forshee
Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook
The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old way needs to stay around for a while, though.
Reported-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Cc Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc Will Drewry <[email protected]>
Cc Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected]
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines
---
Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26 and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.
It builds and tests correctly for me too, with both glibc 2.26 and 2.24.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Tested-by Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
Awesome, thanks!
Shuah, is it possible to land this for v4.14? If it has to wait, that's probably okay, as I've marked it for -stable, so it'll get where it needs to be eventually. :)

Quoted 6 lines

Friendly ping, Shuah, are you able to take this?
Thanks!
-Kees

Yes I can this into 4.14-rc2 or rc3. Thanks for the ping.

-- Shuah