linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more gracefully for !CAP_WAKE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:31:15 -0400
From:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more
 gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM



On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> The set-timer-lat test fails when testing CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM
> or CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM when the user isn't running as root or
> with CAP_WAKE_ALARM.
> 
> So this patch improves the error checking so we report the
> issue more clearly and continue rather then reporting a failure.
> 
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c
> index 3ea2eff..dbc9537c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,13 @@ int do_timer(int clock_id, int flags)
>  
>  	err = timer_create(clock_id, &se, &tm1);
>  	if (err) {
> +		if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM)
> +				|| (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) {

I dunno of there is actually a CodingStyle rule for this, but I've always seen
this written with the operator on the first line:

	if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) ||
            (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) {

> +			printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM?    : [UNSUPPORTED]\n",
> +					clockstring(clock_id),
> +					flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME");

Something to think about:  Do you want to write these tests to be more human
readable or machine readable?  In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too
much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward.

P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/