Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: delete some dead code

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

 



On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 01:16:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/06/20 13:00, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "uffd_delay" variable is unsigned so it's always going to be >= 0.
> > 
> > Fixes: 0119cb365c93 ("KVM: selftests: Add configurable demand paging delay")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c
> > index 360cd3ea4cd67..4eb79621434e6 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c
> > @@ -615,8 +615,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> >  			break;
> >  		case 'd':
> >  			uffd_delay = strtoul(optarg, NULL, 0);
> > -			TEST_ASSERT(uffd_delay >= 0,
> > -				    "A negative UFFD delay is not supported.");
> >  			break;
> >  		case 'b':
> >  			vcpu_memory_bytes = parse_size(optarg);
> > 
> 
> The bug is that strtoul is "impossible" to use correctly.  The right fix
> would be to have a replacement for strtoul.

The test needs an upper limit. It obviously doesn't make sense to ever
want a ULONG_MAX usec delay. What's the maximum number of usecs we should
allow?

Thanks,
drew




[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