linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd] cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:45 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com, ltp@...ts.linux.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd]  cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.fail

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:49:03PM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > So I'd just remove that test. It's meaningless for pseudo fses.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to actually return EINVAL instead of
> ignoring the request if readahead() is not implemented?

It would change the return value for a whole bunch of stuff. I'm not
sure that wouldn't cause regressions but is in any case a question for
the readahead maintainers. For now I'd just remove that test for pidfds
imho.