[LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Amir Goldstein]

On a kernel built without modules loading support the test fails:
fanotify25.c:61: TBROK: write(4,0x55a523b99160,31) failed: EINVAL (22)

Use another symbol which is less likely to be missing.

Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
index c982f3225..9b03fd9ab 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ static const struct traceconfig {
 	const char *filename;
 	const char *wdata;
 } trace_cmds[] = {
-	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_module_0 load_module"},
-	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "1"},
-	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "0"},
-	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_module_0"},
+	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_script_0 load_script"},
+	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "1"},
+	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "0"},
+	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_script_0"},
 	{}
 };
 
-- 
2.53.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> index c982f3225..9b03fd9ab 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> @@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ static const struct traceconfig {
>  	const char *filename;
>  	const char *wdata;
>  } trace_cmds[] = {
> -	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_module_0 load_module"},
> -	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "1"},
> -	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "0"},
> -	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_module_0"},
> +	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_script_0 load_script"},
> +	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "1"},
> +	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "0"},
> +	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_script_0"},

Doesn't this depend on CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT? How likely is that this is
turned off?

If possible I would like to avoid whack-a-mole game trying to find
something that is commonly enabled.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Amir Goldstein]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > index c982f3225..9b03fd9ab 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > @@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ static const struct traceconfig {
> >       const char *filename;
> >       const char *wdata;
> >  } trace_cmds[] = {
> > -     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_module_0 load_module"},
> > -     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "1"},
> > -     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "0"},
> > -     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_module_0"},
> > +     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_script_0 load_script"},
> > +     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "1"},
> > +     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "0"},
> > +     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_script_0"},
>
> Doesn't this depend on CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT? How likely is that this is
> turned off?

CONFIG_MODULES=n is a common config for testing
I don't think this is the case for CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT

>
> If possible I would like to avoid whack-a-mole game trying to find
> something that is commonly enabled.

Feel free to choose any other symbol.

Thanks,
Amir.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Petr Vorel]

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Hi!
> > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c | 8 ++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

> > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > > index c982f3225..9b03fd9ab 100644
> > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> > > @@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ static const struct traceconfig {
> > >       const char *filename;
> > >       const char *wdata;
> > >  } trace_cmds[] = {
> > > -     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_module_0 load_module"},
> > > -     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "1"},
> > > -     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "0"},
> > > -     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_module_0"},
> > > +     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_script_0 load_script"},
> > > +     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "1"},
> > > +     {MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "0"},
> > > +     {EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_script_0"},

> > Doesn't this depend on CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT? How likely is that this is
> > turned off?

> CONFIG_MODULES=n is a common config for testing
> I don't think this is the case for CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT

Yes, it's default y and just briefly checking it's in Tumbleweed and Debian
testing => LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

Kind regards,
Petr

> > If possible I would like to avoid whack-a-mole game trying to find
> > something that is commonly enabled.

> Feel free to choose any other symbol.

> Thanks,
> Amir.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Martin Doucha]

On 3/2/26 18:07, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
>> If possible I would like to avoid whack-a-mole game trying to find
>> something that is commonly enabled.
> 
> Feel free to choose any other symbol.

Hi,
how about oom_kill_process()? That one's unconditionally available and 
shouldn't get called very often in a reasonable test environment either.

I'll prepare a patch and check that it still triggers the expected 
failures on broken kernels.

-- 
Martin Doucha   mdoucha@suse.cz
SW Quality Engineer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
CORSO IIa
Krizikova 148/34
186 00 Prague 8
Czech Republic

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Amir Goldstein]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:49 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/26 18:07, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> If possible I would like to avoid whack-a-mole game trying to find
> >> something that is commonly enabled.
> >
> > Feel free to choose any other symbol.
>
> Hi,
> how about oom_kill_process()? That one's unconditionally available and
> shouldn't get called very often in a reasonable test environment either.

Why does it matter how much the function gets called?
Isn't that irrelevant for the test?

>
> I'll prepare a patch and check that it still triggers the expected
> failures on broken kernels.

I really think we are over-thinking this.

The problem with load_module was that some test setup configs
do not have it - that's all.

Thanks,
Amir.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Martin Doucha]

On 3/3/26 10:54, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:49 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> how about oom_kill_process()? That one's unconditionally available and
>> shouldn't get called very often in a reasonable test environment either.
> 
> Why does it matter how much the function gets called?
> Isn't that irrelevant for the test?

I've written the test to test a specific fanotify regression. Tracing a 
syscall that gets called too often could increase system load and change 
timing of the race which I'm trying to trigger with it.

-- 
Martin Doucha   mdoucha@suse.cz
SW Quality Engineer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
CORSO IIa
Krizikova 148/34
186 00 Prague 8
Czech Republic

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Amir Goldstein]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:59 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/26 10:54, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:49 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> how about oom_kill_process()? That one's unconditionally available and
> >> shouldn't get called very often in a reasonable test environment either.
> >
> > Why does it matter how much the function gets called?
> > Isn't that irrelevant for the test?
>
> I've written the test to test a specific fanotify regression. Tracing a
> syscall that gets called too often could increase system load and change
> timing of the race which I'm trying to trigger with it.
>

Which fanotify regression?
As a reviewer, I got no indication in the commit message,
Test description, nor in LTP tst_test tags that this is a test for a regression.

I have no objection whatsoever to using any other symbol available
in most of the common builds.
Alternatively, the test could test for the desired configuration.

But if the test is meant to track a regression, then *please* document
the regression in the test description and the fix commit if such fix
exists in LTP tst_test tags.

Thanks,
Amir.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Martin Doucha]

On 3/3/26 11:10, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:59 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I've written the test to test a specific fanotify regression. Tracing a
>> syscall that gets called too often could increase system load and change
>> timing of the race which I'm trying to trigger with it.
>>
> 
> Which fanotify regression?
> As a reviewer, I got no indication in the commit message,
> Test description, nor in LTP tst_test tags that this is a test for a regression.
> 
> I have no objection whatsoever to using any other symbol available
> in most of the common builds.
> Alternatively, the test could test for the desired configuration.
> 
> But if the test is meant to track a regression, then *please* document
> the regression in the test description and the fix commit if such fix
> exists in LTP tst_test tags.

The regression in question was not in upstream but a broken backport in 
a custom kernel branch. It was fixed by reverting the backported patch. 
So while the test will be useful for detecting similar regressions in 
upstream, there is nothing I can publicly document about it.

-- 
Martin Doucha   mdoucha@suse.cz
SW Quality Engineer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
CORSO IIa
Krizikova 148/34
186 00 Prague 8
Czech Republic

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Amir Goldstein]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:50 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/26 11:10, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:59 AM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> I've written the test to test a specific fanotify regression. Tracing a
> >> syscall that gets called too often could increase system load and change
> >> timing of the race which I'm trying to trigger with it.
> >>
> >
> > Which fanotify regression?
> > As a reviewer, I got no indication in the commit message,
> > Test description, nor in LTP tst_test tags that this is a test for a regression.
> >
> > I have no objection whatsoever to using any other symbol available
> > in most of the common builds.
> > Alternatively, the test could test for the desired configuration.
> >
> > But if the test is meant to track a regression, then *please* document
> > the regression in the test description and the fix commit if such fix
> > exists in LTP tst_test tags.
>
> The regression in question was not in upstream but a broken backport in
> a custom kernel branch. It was fixed by reverting the backported patch.
> So while the test will be useful for detecting similar regressions in
> upstream, there is nothing I can publicly document about it.
>

Fair enough, but when choosing the function to trace, please
document the reason for choosing this function and document
the fact the expectation that this event will not be triggered during the
test or will not be triggered too frequently, whichever is the case.

Thanks,
Amir.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify25: fix test failure on kernel with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Jan Kara]

On Mon 02-03-26 15:44:46, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On a kernel built without modules loading support the test fails:
> fanotify25.c:61: TBROK: write(4,0x55a523b99160,31) failed: EINVAL (22)
> 
> Use another symbol which is less likely to be missing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>

Looks good. Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> index c982f3225..9b03fd9ab 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify25.c
> @@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ static const struct traceconfig {
>  	const char *filename;
>  	const char *wdata;
>  } trace_cmds[] = {
> -	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_module_0 load_module"},
> -	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "1"},
> -	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_module_0/enable", "0"},
> -	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_module_0"},
> +	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "p:ltp_load_script_0 load_script"},
> +	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "1"},
> +	{MNTPOINT "/events/kprobes/ltp_load_script_0/enable", "0"},
> +	{EVENTS_SYSFILE, "-:ltp_load_script_0"},
>  	{}
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.53.0
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp