* [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: the mount fs_type should be given
@ 2018-01-23 8:23 Li Wang
2018-01-23 8:38 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2018-01-23 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
This commmit 28507e514c(safe_mount: Do not try mount() syscall for FUSE fs)
involves FUSE fs check in safe_mount(), so we should give the "fs_type" when
calling that in case the system kill our program.
cmdline="fanotify06"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<<test_output>>>
tst_test.c:980: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 10m 00s
tst_test.c:1025: BROK: Test killed by SIGSEGV!
Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
index e63e457..8cbe1ad 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ void test01(void)
static void setup(void)
{
SAFE_MKDIR(MOUNT_NAME, 0755);
- SAFE_MOUNT(MOUNT_NAME, MOUNT_NAME, NULL, MS_BIND, NULL);
+ SAFE_MOUNT(MOUNT_NAME, MOUNT_NAME, "none", MS_BIND, NULL);
mount_created = 1;
SAFE_CHDIR(MOUNT_NAME);
--
2.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: the mount fs_type should be given
2018-01-23 8:23 [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: the mount fs_type should be given Li Wang
@ 2018-01-23 8:38 ` Jan Stancek
2018-01-23 8:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2018-01-23 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> This commmit 28507e514c(safe_mount: Do not try mount() syscall for FUSE fs)
> involves FUSE fs check in safe_mount(), so we should give the "fs_type" when
> calling that in case the system kill our program.
Shouldn't we rather change is_fuse() to return 0 if fs_type is NULL?
>
> cmdline="fanotify06"
> contacts=""
> analysis=exit
> <<<test_output>>>
> tst_test.c:980: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 10m 00s
> tst_test.c:1025: BROK: Test killed by SIGSEGV!
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
> index e63e457..8cbe1ad 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify06.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ void test01(void)
> static void setup(void)
> {
> SAFE_MKDIR(MOUNT_NAME, 0755);
> - SAFE_MOUNT(MOUNT_NAME, MOUNT_NAME, NULL, MS_BIND, NULL);
> + SAFE_MOUNT(MOUNT_NAME, MOUNT_NAME, "none", MS_BIND, NULL);
> mount_created = 1;
> SAFE_CHDIR(MOUNT_NAME);
>
> --
> 2.9.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: the mount fs_type should be given
2018-01-23 8:38 ` Jan Stancek
@ 2018-01-23 8:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-01-23 9:05 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2018-01-23 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> > This commmit 28507e514c(safe_mount: Do not try mount() syscall for FUSE fs)
> > involves FUSE fs check in safe_mount(), so we should give the "fs_type" when
> > calling that in case the system kill our program.
>
> Shouldn't we rather change is_fuse() to return 0 if fs_type is NULL?
Agreed.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-23 9:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-01-23 8:23 [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: the mount fs_type should be given Li Wang
2018-01-23 8:38 ` Jan Stancek
2018-01-23 8:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-01-23 9:05 ` Li Wang
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.