Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tests: compile test_syscall with musl-gcc #4957

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

pb8o
Copy link
Contributor

@pb8o pb8o commented Dec 12, 2024

In addition do a few more cleanups to the test:

  • Use atol to read longs

  • musl makes an ioctl that is not permitted in seccomp. We didn't use the return code anyway, so remove it.

Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

In addition do a few more cleanups to the test:

- Use `atol` to read longs

- musl makes an ioctl that is not permitted in seccomp. We didn't use
  the return code anyway, so remove it.

Signed-off-by: Pablo Barbáchano <[email protected]>
@pb8o pb8o added Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` Status: Awaiting author Indicates that an issue or pull request requires author action labels Dec 12, 2024
@pb8o pb8o self-assigned this Dec 12, 2024
@pb8o pb8o requested a review from roypat December 12, 2024 15:27
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.98%. Comparing base (e56b6a2) to head (43631cb).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4957   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.98%   83.98%           
=======================================
  Files         251      251           
  Lines       27889    27889           
=======================================
  Hits        23422    23422           
  Misses       4467     4467           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.55% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 84.53% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 83.82% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 80.68% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 84.53% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 80.68% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 84.55% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 84.53% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 83.82% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 80.68% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 84.52% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 80.68% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

roypat
roypat previously approved these changes Dec 12, 2024
@pb8o pb8o added Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed and removed Status: Awaiting author Indicates that an issue or pull request requires author action labels Dec 12, 2024
Manciukic
Manciukic previously approved these changes Dec 12, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Manciukic Manciukic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

out of scope of this change, but I was wondering whether we should also ensure that a syscall not allowed in the filter results in a violation, as we do for bad args.

@pb8o
Copy link
Contributor Author

pb8o commented Dec 12, 2024

out of scope of this change, but I was wondering whether we should also ensure that a syscall not allowed in the filter results in a violation, as we do for bad args.

ok let me do that, it's not terribly difficult I think...

@pb8o pb8o dismissed stale reviews from Manciukic and roypat via e264c9f December 12, 2024 18:05
@pb8o pb8o force-pushed the test-seccomp branch 3 times, most recently from 849f819 to 30d0260 Compare December 13, 2024 09:23
@pb8o pb8o merged commit e7ccf54 into firecracker-microvm:main Dec 13, 2024
7 checks passed
@pb8o pb8o deleted the test-seccomp branch December 13, 2024 10:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants