linux-kernel - Re: [mm/mempolicy] 7463fff037: ltp.mbind01.fail

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YL3UYOGIz1HoqGd1@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:10:08 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, 0day robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        ltp@...ts.linux.it, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [mm/mempolicy]  7463fff037: ltp.mbind01.fail

On Mon 07-06-21 15:48:15, kernel test robot wrote:
> mbind01.c:169: TINFO: case MPOL_PREFERRED (no target)
> mbind01.c:188: TFAIL: Wrong policy: 1, expected: 4

AFAIU this points to
static void test_none(unsigned int i, char *p)
{
        struct test_case *tc = &tcase[i];

        TEST(mbind(p, MEM_LENGTH, tc->policy, NULL, 0, tc->flags));
}

So it calls MPOL_PREFERRED with NULL parameter and the test has failed
because the kernel returns MPOL_LOCAL instead of MPOL_PREFERRED. Strictly
speaking this is breaking user interface but I am wondering whether this
really matter or is completely unexpected.  The manual page explicitly
talks about this case
"
	If the nodemask and maxnode arguments specify the empty set, then
	the memory is allocated on the node of the CPU that triggered the
	allocation.
"

I would be inclined to keep this inconsistency and see whether anybody
actually complains and have a relevant use for this behavior. The
cleanup which makes the code easier to maintain and less error prone
doesn't really deserve to get ditched just because of this IMHO.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs