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: <0d22f89a-d896-44ed-b4a9-c860c63450fa@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:53:58 +0530
From: Shan <sinadin.shan@...cle.com>
To: Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...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


On 20-02-2025 09:26 pm, Chris Hyser wrote:
> 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.

By graceful skip, I meant printing that SCHED_CORE is disabled for the 
kernel and exiting with a return code 4 on such kernels. This would also 
make the kselftest framework pick up the skip, say when compiled tests 
are run through run_kselftest.sh

> 
> 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.

Yes, that seems bad as rightly pointed out by Shrikant. I have a patch 
that does the above mentioned skip, and if skipping is a right option to 
take here I can send it in the next version.

Regards,
Shan
> 
> I'm happy to make this better behaved. I'm the reason it is the way it is.
> 
> -chrish
> 
>