linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests: pidfd: add tests for PIDFD_SELF

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]

Message-ID: <79f70ce6-f2ad-4fa6-90b9-6a0a936669e5@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:37:00 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 pedro.falcato@...il.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests: pidfd: add tests for PIDFD_SELF_*

On 10/17/24 10:28 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:17:54AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 10/17/24 5:06 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
...
>>> 	#ifndef __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H
>>> 	#define __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H
>>>
>>> 	/*
>>> 	 * Some systems have issues with the linux/fcntl.h import in linux/pidfd.h, so
>>> 	 * work around this by setting the header guard.
>>> 	 */
>>> 	#define _LINUX_FCNTL_H
>>> 	#include "../../../include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h"
>>> 	#undef _LINUX_FCNTL_H
>>>
>>> 	#endif /* __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H */
>>>
>>>
>>> Then the test code needs only to update the pidfd.h file to #include
>>> <linux/pidfd.h> and add a simple $(TOOLS_INCLUDES) to the CFLAGS += line in
>>> the pidfd self tests Makefile and we should be all good.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> That way we always import everything in this header correctly, we directly
>>> document this issue, we include the header as you would in userland and we
>>> should cover off all the issues?
>>
>> Very nice!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I saw from your other thread the idea was to take snapshots and to run scripts
> to compare etc. but I suppose putting this into the known-stub directory

Actually, I'm not running scripts, because the only time things need to
change is when new selftests require a new include, or when something
changes that selftests depend on.

> tools/include/linux rather than tools/include/uapi/linux would avoid a conflict
> here.

This is the first time I've actually looked at tools/include/linux. That
sounds about right, though.

> 
> Or would you say the wrapper should regardless be in the uapi/linux directory?
> 

No, not if there is already a better location, as you pointed out.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard