Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] selftests/seccomp: validate uretprobe syscall passes through seccomp
From: Jiri Olsa <hidden>
Date: 2025-02-02 20:51:47
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml
On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 08:29:21AM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote: SNIP
+TEST_F(URETPROBE, uretprobe_default_block)
+{
+ struct sock_filter filter[] = {
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS,
+ offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)),
+ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit_group, 1, 0),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
+ };
+ struct sock_fprog prog = {
+ .len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(filter),
+ .filter = filter,
+ };
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, run_probed_with_filter(&prog));
+}
+
+TEST_F(URETPROBE, uretprobe_block_uretprobe_syscall)
+{
+ struct sock_filter filter[] = {
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS,
+ offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)),
+#ifdef __NR_uretprobe
+ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_uretprobe, 0, 1),
+#endifdoes it make sense to run these tests on archs without __NR_uretprobe ? jirka
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
+ };
+ struct sock_fprog prog = {
+ .len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(filter),
+ .filter = filter,
+ };
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, run_probed_with_filter(&prog));
+}
+
+TEST_F(URETPROBE, uretprobe_default_block_with_uretprobe_syscall)
+{
+ struct sock_filter filter[] = {
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS,
+ offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)),
+#ifdef __NR_uretprobe
+ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_uretprobe, 2, 0),
+#endif
+ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit_group, 1, 0),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
+ };
+ struct sock_fprog prog = {
+ .len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(filter),
+ .filter = filter,
+ };
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, run_probed_with_filter(&prog));
+}
+
/*
* TODO:
* - expand NNP testing
--
2.43.0