linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] test_sysclt: Test for registering a mount point

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]

Date:   Sat, 10 Jun 2023 21:58:01 +0800
From:   Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
To:     Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
CC:     <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>, <lkp@...el.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <mcgrof@...nel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] test_sysclt: Test for registering a mount point

hi Joel Granados,

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:27:17AM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 10:41:05PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed "sysctl_could_not_get_directory" on:
> > 
> > commit: 1997935e918fa4c07b70be47ef8f37622df427bd ("[PATCH 6/8] test_sysclt: Test for registering a mount point")
[...]
> > [ 15.271017][ T1] initcall io_uring_init+0x0/0x40 returned 0 after 87 usecs 
> > [ 15.272122][ T1] calling test_firmware_init+0x0/0x190 @ 1 
> > [   15.274422][    T1] test_firmware: interface ready
> > [ 15.275240][ T1] initcall test_firmware_init+0x0/0x190 returned 0 after 2200 usecs 
> > [ 15.276480][ T1] calling test_sysctl_init+0x0/0x630 @ 1 
> > [   15.277687][    T1] sysctl could not get directory: /debug/test_sysctl/mnt/mnt_error -30
> 
> This is precisely what I'm trying to test. I'm trying to create a
> directory on top of a permanently empty directory and expecting the
> failure and checking to see that the mnt_error directory was not
> created.

got it, thanks for information! now we noticed this commit is already in
linux-next/master, we ignored the similar alert from test results.

> 
> @mcgrof: Can we just ignore this 0-day report as a false positive?
> 
> Best
> 
>