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

Message-ID: <f86c7af5-9e7f-41a0-a357-6a356fdeb0b9@stanley.mountain>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 12:39:46 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
Cc: Su Hui <suhui@...china.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 05:13:50PM -0500, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> 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.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that we
should allow zero as an expected file descriptor here?  I don't have
strong feelings about that either way.

Putting variables on the right, Yoda speak is.  Unnatural is.

I did a git grep and the KUNIT_EXPECT_LT() just calls the parameters
left and right instead of "expected" and "seen".  Expected is wrong
for LT because we expect it to be != to the expected value.  It's
the opposite.  We're expecting the unexpected!  It would be better
to just call them left and right.

regards,
dan carpenter