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

Message-ID: <1111e313-18b5-42c3-9e53-ba46c3826fc6@stanley.mountain>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:21:54 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
Cc: zfigura@...eweavers.com, 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 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()?

regards,
dan carpenter