On 1/28/21 9:17 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
This test expects fds to have specific values, which works fine
when the test is run standalone. However, the kselftest runner
consumes a couple of extra fds for redirection when running
tests, so the test fails when run via kselftest.
Change the test to pass on any valid fd number.
Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 8 ++------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 26c72f2b61b1..9338df6f4ca8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -4019,18 +4019,14 @@ TEST(user_notification_addfd)
/* Verify we can set an arbitrary remote fd */
fd = ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD, &addfd);
- /*
- * The child has fds 0(stdin), 1(stdout), 2(stderr), 3(memfd),
- * 4(listener), so the newly allocated fd should be 5.
- */
- EXPECT_EQ(fd, 5);
+ EXPECT_GE(fd, 0);
EXPECT_EQ(filecmp(getpid(), pid, memfd, fd), 0);
/* Verify we can set an arbitrary remote fd with large size */
memset(&big, 0x0, sizeof(big));
big.addfd = addfd;
fd = ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD_BIG, &big);
- EXPECT_EQ(fd, 6);
+ EXPECT_GE(fd, 0);
/* Verify we can set a specific remote fd */
addfd.newfd = 42;
Here is my Ack if Kees wants to take it through seccomp.
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thanks,
-- Shuah
