[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202405181014.B84D979BA@keescook>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:18:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] selftests: harness: remove unneeded
__constructor_order_last()
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 12:29:00PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> It will be set to "true" eventually,
> but __LIST_APPEND() still sees "false"
> on backward-order systems.
Ah, yes -- you are right. I looked through the commit history (I had
to go back to when the seccomp test, and the harness, was out of tree).
There was a time when the logic happened during the list walking, rather
than during list _creation_. I was remembering the former.
So, yes, let's make this change. As you say, it also solves for defining
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN before the tests. Thank you! I'd still like to replace
all the open-coded TEST_HARNESS_MAIN calls, though.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists