[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75fa3e12-8b0d-407b-b11f-333be70d157e@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 19:13:21 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Don't needlessly use sudo to obtain root
in run_vmtests.sh
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:32:58AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 12:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Ah, I was assuming that some of the suite ran usefully as non-root given
> > that the only point of that sudo was to acquire root. If the whole
> > thing needs to be root then we should instead have a check for root at
> > the top of run_vmtests.sh and just skip the whole thing if we aren't
> > root, but then I'm unclear why it's invoking sudo in the first place.
> I can't speak for how others use the suite, but there are a bunch of setup
> operations in the script itself that require root (e.g. reserving huge pages).
> Some of the tests will work without root, I'm sure, but I'm not sure its hugely
> valuable. Personally, I'd vote for just doing a test for root at the top, as you
> suggest.
The hugetlb tests appear to be checking for root while running... I'm
not super fussed either way myself, I don't really use these tests
myself except in a general "keeping an eye on CI" kind of way so I'd not
object if people wanted to just go for just requiring root for the whole
thing.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists