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

Message-ID: <b8e5405f-fd79-49df-a3d3-ca10fdeee094@nfschina.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:23:25 +0800
From: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
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 2025/3/14 18:14, 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.

Sorry for the wrong style of email:(.

Su Hui