On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 10:22 +0000, David Drysdale wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On systems which don't implement sys_execveat(), this test produces a
> > lot of output.
> >
> > Add a check at the beginning to see if the syscall is present, and if
> > not just note one error and return.
>
> Good point, thanks.
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
> > index e238c9559caf..b87e4a843bea 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
> > @@ -234,6 +234,14 @@ static int run_tests(void)
> > int fd_cloexec = open_or_die("execveat", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC);
> > int fd_script_cloexec = open_or_die("script", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC);
> >
> > + /* Check if we have execveat at all, and bail early if not */
> > + errno = 0;
> > + execveat_(-1, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0);
> > + if (errno == -ENOSYS) {
>
> Could we change this to ENOSYS (no minus) and also change
> the execveat_() function similarly, so that a binary built where
> __NR_execveat is available but running where it isn't also exits
> early? (My bad for having the minus sign in execveat_() in the
> first place -- fingers too used to kernel mode.)
Ah yeah, me too, -ENOSYS just came naturally.
Will fix up and retest and resend.
cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
