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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980CEC433E2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B09F208E4 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726228AbgIKPlE (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:41:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44264 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725818AbgIKPgb (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:36:31 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD21AAC2B; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:36:59 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Martin Doucha Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it, Alexandre Chartre , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ptrace10: Add new regression test Message-ID: <20200911153659.GA7234@yuki.lan> References: <20200904180030.14838-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <6d9b6e46-8337-9614-8fd7-b6ada8fcbe13@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6d9b6e46-8337-9614-8fd7-b6ada8fcbe13@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > the code looks good, though it might make sense to simply integrate the > check into ptrace08. Just 6 extra lines in the existing test should > achieve the same coverage. I would like to avoid triggering the "your system may be vunerable" messages on fixed kernel, hence the separate test. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz