linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: sched: add sched as a default selftest target

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:
 <CO1PR10MB4705883FED10DAE126DEC9D59BC42@CO1PR10MB4705.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:56:43 +0000
From: Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
To: Sinadin Shan <sinadin.shan@...cle.com>,
        Shrikanth Hegde
	<sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
CC: "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: sched: add sched as a default selftest target

From: Sinadin Shan <sinadin.shan@...cle.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 9:52 AM
To: Shrikanth Hegde; Chris Hyser
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: sched: add sched as a default selftest target

> On 20-02-2025 01:15 pm, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>
>> If CONFIG_SCHED_CORE=n, the test fails. So you might end up seeing
>> default selftests failing on such systems? or this is only compiling?>
>
> Yes, this patch would enable the test to be compiled and run by default.
>
>> Likely the selftests/sched needs to modified for CONFIG_SCHED_CORE=n
>
> Agree. Chris, I suppose then a graceful skip would be a more right
> option for kernels with core scheduling disabled?

By graceful skip, do you mean a 0 return code and not printing failure? I confess, 
I originally wrote the test as stand-alone for me to get the prctl code right and it 
got shoved in here. 

I guess my question is what if SCHED_CORE was supposed to be configed into 
the test kernel?  Silently burying the error might be bad. I'm not strongly tied to 
that, just looking for opinions. At the same time, if you put the orig change in, 
people w/o SCHED_CORE on will start seeing "failures" they didn't see before, 
yes? and that seems bad.

I'm happy to make this better behaved. I'm the reason it is the way it is.

-chrish