[PATCH v4 02/10] tests/inject-nf.test: replace getpid with geteuid

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:00:31PM +0200, Ákos Uzonyi wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 21:31, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Ákos Uzonyi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 17:45, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:01:43PM +0200, Ákos Uzonyi wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 01:37, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 06:18:29PM +0200, Ákos Uzonyi wrote:
> > > > > > > Since we treat PIDs as signed integers, large values (>=2^31) will
> > > > > > > cause overflow when we use printpid.
> > > > > > > UIDs are treated as unsigned integers, so geteuid is a good alternative.
> > > > > > > (getuid would be problematic, as it does not exists on alpha).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, this approach doesn't work because
> > > > > > $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/overflowuid
> > > > > > 65534
> > > > > > $ ./inject-nf
> > > > > > expected 0x25bd0, got rval=0xfffe err=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See also tests/overflowuid.c file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I don't understand why overflowuid is significant here.
> > > >
> > > > geteuid syscall is affected by overflowuid on such architectures
> > > > as x86 where geteuid32 syscall exists.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the problem happens only when we run
> > > inject-nf without injection. But why do we want to do that? Would it
> > > be OK to remove the "run_prog" line from tests/inject-nf.test?
> >
> > We use run_prog to make sure the program works properly without strace.
> > In case of geteuid it doesn't because geteuid is not universal enough.
> 
> What about replacing geteuid() call with INVOKE_SC(err) in expected value?

This would result to comparison of INVOKE_SC(err) with itself.


-- 
ldv