linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: openat2: Fix testing failure for O

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <11702c81-8b7c-bbe6-705a-f0fed5f10ba5@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:33:00 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: openat2: Fix testing failure for O_LARGEFILE
 flag

On 8/24/21 5:36 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 09:21:29PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>> On 2021-08-23, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Baolin,
>>>
>>> On 8/22/21 8:40 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>> Hi Shuah,
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/7/28 20:32, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> When running the openat2 test suite on ARM64 platform, we got below failure,
>>>>>> since the definition of the O_LARGEFILE is different on ARM64. So we can
>>>>>> set the correct O_LARGEFILE definition on ARM64 to fix this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot to copy the failure log:
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Please cc everybody get_maintainers.pl suggests. You are missing
>>> key reviewers for this change.
>>>
>>> Adding Christian Brauner and Aleksa Sarai to the thread.
>>>
>>>>> # openat2 unexpectedly returned # 3['/lkp/benchmarks/kernel_selftests/tools/testing/selftests/openat2'] with 208000 (!= 208000)
>>>
>>> Not sure I understand this. 208000 (!= 208000) look sthe same to me.
>>>
>>>>> not ok 102 openat2 with incompatible flags (O_PATH | O_LARGEFILE) fails with -22 (Invalid argument)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>
>>>> Could you apply this patch if no objection from your side? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ideally this define should come from an include file.
>>
>> The issue is that O_LARGEFILE is set to 0 by glibc because glibc appears
>> to hide the nuts and bolts of largefile support from userspace. I
>> couldn't find a nice way of doing a architecture-dependent includes of
>> include/uapi from kselftests, so I just went with this instead -- but I
>> agree that a proper include would be better if someone can figure out
>> how to do it.
> 

 From a quick look, it will take sone work to consolidate multiple
O_LARGEFILE defines.

> I'd just add arch-dependent defines for now and call it good. So seems
> good enough for me:
> 
> Thanks!
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
> 
>>
>>> Christian, Aleksa,
>>>
>>> Can you review this patch and let me know if this approach looks right.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>

Thank you for the patch and the reviews. I will apply this for 5.15-rc1

thanks,
-- Shuah