[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:37:04 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fabricio Voznika <fvoznika@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/seccomp: Test thread vs process killing
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
>> + /* Only the thread died. Let parent know this thread didn't die. */
>
> This read a little odd to me. How about, "Only the created thread died.
> Let parent know the this creating thread didn't die."?
Sounds good. I've updated this to be more descriptive.
>> + ASSERT_EQ(1, WIFEXITED(status));
>
> This is probably nitpicky but, after reading the wait(2) man page, I
> feel like this should be ASSERT_TRUE(WIFEXITED(status)) instead of
> comparing to 1. There's no documented guarantee that 1 will be returned.
That's a fair point. I've updated this and WIFSIGNALED now, thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists