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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <058cd52f-aa5d-477b-83d0-3745fc9f70c5@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:39:31 +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 21-02-2025 11:30 am, Chris Hyser wrote:
> From: Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:21 PM
> To: Sinadin Shan; Shrikanth Hegde
> 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
>>
>> From: Sinadin Shan <sinadin.shan@...cle.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:23 AM
>> To: Chris Hyser; Shrikanth Hegde
>> 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
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> If that is the plan, I prefer to fix it myself.
> 
> Ok. Here is a better plan. I suspected there must be some convention for all
> these tests (that you are obviously familiar with), I just feel bad for how this test
> originally got jammed in here. If you already have a patch, we should just go with
> that and yes adding that code seems like the exact right thing to do.
> 

Thanks Chris, I shall send the new patch.

-Shan

> -chrish
>