[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170726142723.GW29716@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:27:23 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: selftest: Add tests for
UFFD_FREATURE_SIGBUS
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:47:42AM -0400, Prakash Sangappa wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Like Mike said, some comment about the test would be better, commit
messages are never one liners in the kernel.
> @@ -408,6 +409,7 @@ static int copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset)
> userfaults++;
> break;
> case UFFD_EVENT_FORK:
> + close(uffd);
> uffd = msg.arg.fork.ufd;
> pollfd[0].fd = uffd;
> break;
Isn't this fd leak bugfix independent of the rest of the changes? The
only side effects should have been that it could run out of fds, but I
assume this was found by source review as I doubt it could run out of fds.
This could be splitted off in a separate patch.
Overall it looks a good test also exercising UFFD_EVENT_FORK at the
same time.
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists