Re: [PATCH] proc: fix proc-self-map-files selftest for arm

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/11/18 7:00 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:30:06AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:02:56AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:56:01PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

As the comment in the beginning says this test is specifically for addresss 0.
Maybe it should be ifdeffed with __arm__ then.

Is there some other reason than allocating non-mergable VMA?

IIRC the reason is to test address 0 as it is effectively banned
for userspace so if it will be broken, it will be broken silently
for a long time.

This is rather a side effect of the test because the primary reason
was to check procfs numbers conversion, right? Don't get me wrong,
I don't mind about __arm__ define or similar, this is fine for
one architecture, but if there comes more we will get a number
of #ifdefs which is unrelated to procfs numeric routines at all.

That is what I also had in mind, thus the patch. I just realized we had another issue on LKFT (our functional tests tool) for proc-self-map-files-001.c. Test 001 does pretty much the same as 002, but without the MAP_FIXED mmap flag.

Is it okay to consolidate both tests into just 1, and focus in checking procfs numbers conversion only, rather than if mapping 0 is allowed or not ? Can I send a v2 with that in mind ?


As for "unmergeable" libc here doesn't map /dev/zero. I know how to
avoid even theoretical breakage by creating binaries by hand but it
will be probably too much.

Sure.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux