linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] selftests/mm: soft-dirty should fail if a testcase fails

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: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:24:02 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
 Shivansh Vij <shivanshvij@...look.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] selftests/mm: soft-dirty should fail if a testcase
 fails

On 22/04/2024 10:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.24 09:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Previously soft-dirty was unconditionally exiting with success, even if
>> one of it's testcases failed. Let's fix that so that failure can be
>> reported to automated systems properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>> index 7dbfa53d93a0..bdfa5d085f00 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>> @@ -209,5 +209,5 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>>       close(pagemap_fd);
>>
>> -    return ksft_exit_pass();
>> +    ksft_finished();
>>   }
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>
> 
> Guess that makes sense independent of all the other stuff?

Yes definitely. What's the process here? Do I need to re-post as a stand-alone
patch? Or perhaps, Shuah, you could take this into your tree as is?

> 
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

Thanks!