Re: [PATCH] selftests: openat2: Fix testing failure for O_LARGEFILE flag

Christian Brauner
2021-08-24T11:36:28Z

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 09:21:29PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2021-08-23, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi Baolin,
> >
> > On 8/22/21 8:40 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > Hi Shuah,
> > >
> > > On 2021/7/28 20:32, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > When running the openat2 test suite on ARM64 platform, we got below failure,
> > > > > since the definition of the O_LARGEFILE is different on ARM64. So we can
> > > > > set the correct O_LARGEFILE definition on ARM64 to fix this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I forgot to copy the failure log:
> > > >
> >
> > Please cc everybody get_maintainers.pl suggests. You are missing
> > key reviewers for this change.
> >
> > Adding Christian Brauner and Aleksa Sarai to the thread.
> >
> > > > # openat2 unexpectedly returned # 3['/lkp/benchmarks/kernel_selftests/tools/testing/selftests/openat2'] with 208000 (!= 208000)
> >
> > Not sure I understand this. 208000 (!= 208000) look sthe same to me.
> >
> > > > not ok 102 openat2 with incompatible flags (O_PATH | O_LARGEFILE) fails with -22 (Invalid argument)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> > >
> > > Could you apply this patch if no objection from your side? Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > Ideally this define should come from an include file.
>
> The issue is that O_LARGEFILE is set to 0 by glibc because glibc appears
> to hide the nuts and bolts of largefile support from userspace. I
> couldn't find a nice way of doing a architecture-dependent includes of
> include/uapi from kselftests, so I just went with this instead -- but I
> agree that a proper include would be better if someone can figure out
> how to do it.

I'd just add arch-dependent defines for now and call it good. So seems
good enough for me:

Thanks!
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>

>
> > Christian, Aleksa,
> >
> > Can you review this patch and let me know if this approach looks right.
>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>