linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] selftests/mm: report SKIP in pfnmap if a check fails

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: <ac7ca47b-3ef7-4b54-8539-c75871ed7472@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:25:47 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Mark Brown
 <broonie@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] selftests/mm: report SKIP in pfnmap if a check
 fails

On 12/01/2026 10:03, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 12/01/2026 10:34, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> -	if (!check_vmflag_pfnmap(self->addr1))
>>> -		SKIP(return, "Invalid file: '%s'. Not pfnmap'ed\n", file);
>> I wonder if we still want this check per-fd, but upgraded to a fail?
> 
> It seems very unlikely to fail though, I can only think of the
> underlying file having changed in between but I really wouldn't expect
> that for such special files. I was trying not to duplicate the checks
> too much.

Fair enough. No strong opinion from me. I just thought that given this is a test
that claims to be checking the behaviour of pfnmaps, then we ought to be pretty
sure we have a pfnmap.

> 
> - Kevin