linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/ipc: Fix msgque compiler warnings

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]

Message-ID: <20190408200141.uusxqlqly6tab6h7@linux-r8p5>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:01:41 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/ipc: Fix msgque compiler warnings

On Mon, 08 Apr 2019, Kees Cook wrote:

>This fixes the various compiler warnings when building the msgque
>selftest. The primary change is using sys/msg.h instead of linux/msg.h
>directly to gain the API declarations.
>
>Fixes: 3a665531a3b7 ("selftests: IPC message queue copy feature test")
>Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

(Not really related to this patch)

Given that the selftest/ipc/ only consists of this test, I wonder if
the test should just be moved to ltp, where the ipc tests are a lot
more complete and robust -- and which I've been using for years for
basic testing code changes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having ipc tests in the kernel, but it
seems rather impractical to have them in both places considering the
relevance of ltp in the community and how long they have existed there.

I'm also speaking on the basis that by ipc we are referring only to
sysv and posix flavors.

Thanks,
Davidlohr