On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 02:01:42 PM Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:52:04 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > Interesting. What version of Cython do you have installed? For reference > > I'm curently using Cython 0.17.4 ... although I just noticed that 0.18 is > > available. Also, can I assume this is Ubuntu and/or Debian? > > The disk image I got running was Debian wheezy. It has 0.15.1. :)
I wonder if that is the culprit? I vaguely remember upgrading from 0.16.mumble to 0.17.x but never from 0.15.mumble ... > >> > # cd tests > >> > # ./regression -m c -m python > >> > >> Running "regression -m c" has some failures: > >> > >> Test 08-sim-subtree_checks%%022-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim resulted > >> in > >> KILL Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%001-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%002-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%004-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%005-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%006-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%008-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%009-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%010-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> Test 12-sim-basic_masked_ops%%015-00001 result: FAILURE bpf_sim > >> resulted in KILL > >> ... > >> Regression Test Summary > >> > >> tests run: 3950 > >> tests skipped: 55 > >> tests passed: 3940 > >> tests failed: 10 > >> tests errored: 0 > > > > Hmm, bummer. Can you post the output of the following: > > # cd tests > > # ./08-sim-subtree_checks > > kees@debian:~/libseccomp/tests$ ./08-sim-subtree_checks > # > # pseudo filter code start > # > # filter for arch arm (1073741864) Thanks, I'll wade through those to make sure we're generating the correct BPF. > >> > # ./regression -m c -m python -T live > >> > >> Running "regression -m c -T live" passes: > >> > >> Test 20-live-basic_die%%001-00000 result: SUCCESS > >> Test 20-live-basic_die%%002-00000 result: SUCCESS > >> Test 20-live-basic_die%%003-00000 result: SUCCESS > >> Test 21-live-basic_allow%%001-00000 result: SUCCESS > >> Test 24-live-arg_allow%%001-00000 result: SUCCESS > >> ... > >> Regression Test Summary > >> > >> tests run: 5 > >> tests skipped: 0 > >> tests passed: 5 > >> tests failed: 0 > >> tests errored: 0 > > > > At least that worked okay. That's good. > > > >> Are you on IRC anywhere normally? > > > > Yes and no; I'm on IRC in a few channels but you generally have to yell my > > name to get my attention, I don't really actively monitor any particular > > channel. You can find me on freenode in #kvm and #selinux as pmoore; do > > you guys have a seccomp channel? > > Cool, I'll idle in #kvm. I'm on a bunch, but #chromium-os has the most > people familiar with seccomp in it. Great, thanks. > Now I just have to get an x32 environment... FWIW, Gentoo has an x32 image that I've been using to develop the libseccomp support, although seccomp_filter for x32 is badly broken in the upstream kernel and while I've posted a patch to fix it, I'm having a really hard time getting the maintainers to actually merge it. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html _______________________________________________ libseccomp-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
