@@ -3271,7 +3271,7 @@ TEST(user_notification_child_pid_ns)
struct seccomp_notif req = {};
struct seccomp_notif_resp resp = {};
- ASSERT_EQ(unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), 0);
+ ASSERT_EQ(unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID), 0);
listener = user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER);
ASSERT_GE(listener, 0);
@@ -3308,6 +3308,8 @@ TEST(user_notification_sibling_pid_ns)
struct seccomp_notif req = {};
struct seccomp_notif_resp resp = {};
+ ASSERT_EQ(unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), 0);
+
listener = user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER);
ASSERT_GE(listener, 0);
The pid ns cannot be unshare()d as an unprivileged user without owning the userns as well. Let's unshare the userns so that we can subsequently unshare the pidns. This also means that we don't need to set the no new privs bit as in the other test cases, since we're unsharing the userns. Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> --- tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)