linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip sigtrap test on old kernels

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: <CANpmjNMPh5QjdxXtrCc5FApjgzV=81CNNiwbeg_rE3NxN_WCZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Sep 2022 08:52:01 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip sigtrap test on old kernels

On Sat, 3 Sept 2022 at 02:02, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> If it runs on an old kernel, perf_event_open would fail because of the
> new fields sigtrap and sig_data.  Just skip the test if it failed.
>
> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c b/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c
> index e32ece90e164..7057566e6ae4 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ static int test__sigtrap(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __m
>         fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, -1, -1, perf_event_open_cloexec_flag());
>         if (fd < 0) {
>                 pr_debug("FAILED sys_perf_event_open(): %s\n", str_error_r(errno, sbuf, sizeof(sbuf)));
> +               ret = TEST_SKIP;

Wouldn't we be interested if perf_event_open() fails because it could
actually be a bug? By skipping we'll be more likely to miss the fact
there's a real problem.

That's my naive thinking at least - what do other perf tests usually
do in this case?

Thanks,
-- Marco