From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1586EC87FC9 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:47:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B4B3CA31A for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:47:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338CB3C0565 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:47:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C516600BA6 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:47:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5391F789; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC8813A73; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 3dnXIaGKiGi6QgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:47:29 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:47:20 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: <20250729084720.GA13357@pevik> References: <20250729-ioctl_pidfd01_selinux-v1-1-432e100a5a53@suse.com> <5913636.DvuYhMxLoT@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CA5391F789 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.7 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Disable io_uring fd in ioctl_pidfd01 for selinux X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On 7/29/25 10:32 AM, Avinesh Kumar wrote: > > We also have same failure for memfd_secret case in this test: > > ioctl_pidfd01.c:37: TINFO: memfd secret -> ... > > ioctl_pidfd01.c:28: TFAIL: ioctl(memfd secret, PIDFD_GET_INFO, info) expected EINVAL, EBADF, ENOTTY: EACCES (13) > > If we are opting for skipping the tests when selinux is enforcing mode, > > this also needs to be skipped. > In this case we will probably need to disable the test for SELinux > enforcing. Well, all tests (ioctl_pidfd01.c, this ioctl_pidfd01.c, mount08.c) are testing with TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR(), i.e. negative tests. Wouldn't be better to just expect a different errno? At least this is what I suggested to mount08.c [1]. Whichever of these to approaches we agree on, I wonder if we should document the recommended way somewhere, maybe in Writing tests [2]. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20250728103141.GA756176@pevik/ [2] https://linux-test-project.readthedocs.io/en/latest/developers/writing_tests.html > - Andrea -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp