linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement check_timer

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, 8 Apr 2024 12:26:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>,
	Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement
 check_timer_distribution()

On 04/08, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> >
> >         if (ctd_failed)
> >                 ksft_test_result_skip("No signal distribution. Assuming old kernel\n");
>
> Shouldn't the test fail here? The goal of a test is to fail when
> things don't work.

I've copied this from the previous patch from Thomas, I am fine
either way.

> I don't see any other ksft_test_result_fail() calls, and it does not
> look that the test will hang on incorrect distribution.

Yes, it should never hang.

Thanks,

Oleg.