linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests: ntsync: fix the wrong condition in wake

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2051560.PIDvDuAF1L@camazotz>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:13:50 -0500
From: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests: ntsync: fix the wrong condition in wake_all

On Friday, 14 March 2025 05:14:30 CDT Su Hui wrote:
> On 2025/3/14 17:21, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 03:14:51PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
> >> When  'manual=false' and  'signaled=true', then expected value when using
> >> NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT should be greater than zero. Fix this typo error.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Su Hui<suhui@...china.com>
> >> ---
> >>   tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> >> index 3aad311574c4..bfb6fad653d0 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> >> @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ TEST(wake_all)
> >>   	auto_event_args.manual = false;
> >>   	auto_event_args.signaled = true;
> >>   	objs[3] = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT, &auto_event_args);
> >> -	EXPECT_EQ(0, objs[3]);
> >> +	EXPECT_LE(0, objs[3]);
> > It's kind of weird how these macros put the constant on the left.
> > It returns an "fd" on success.  So this look reasonable.  It probably
> > won't return the zero fd so we could probably check EXPECT_LT()?
> Agreed, there are about 29 items that can be changed to EXPECT_LT().
> I can send a v2 patchset with this change if there is no more other
> suggestions.

I personally think it looks wrong to use EXPECT_LT(), but I'll certainly defer to a higher maintainer on this point.