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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240423135225.GA195737@pevik>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:52:25 +0200
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, lkp@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
	ltp@...ts.linux.it, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd]  cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.fail

Hi,

> 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.

@Matthew, any input on Cyril's question please?

Kind regards,
Petr