Re: [LTP] [PATCH] userfaultfd03.c: Require kernel 6.1

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

> Hi!
> > > > > > > Nothing besides trying to fix 6.11 (which was not the case) and trying to
> > > > > > > simplify. But whole effort is somehow relevant to general checking test
> > > > > > > requirements cleanup (we had a discussion runtime checks vs. kconfig/min_kver
> > > > > > > which resulted in Cyril's "lib: tst_kconfig: Add runtime checks" [2]).

> > > > > > I guess that the check for all userfaultfd tests should be moved to the
> > > > > > tst_kconfig.c once my patch that adds runtime checks there is in.

> > > > > Or I can send a V3 that adds that check as well.

> > > > Sure, having /dev/userfaultfd in kconfig check would be a benefit. Thanks!

> > > However it looks like we cannot do that, the /dev/userfaultfd was added
> > > into 6.1 while the usefaultfd syscall existed since 4.3. Hence tests
> > > that need /dev/userfaultfd need additional checks.

> > We require for userfaultfd05.c also CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP=y.
> > Maybe bound /dev/userfaultfd check to it?  OTOH
> > CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP=y is much older (v5.19-rc1) and original commit
> > in 6.1 [1] does not refer to it.

> Does not work either, the /dev/userfaultfd was added without any changes
> in CONFIG. If we wanted this as generic funcitionality we would have to
> add .needs_devices field into tst_test structure but as far as I my
> grepping shows, usefaultfd is at the moment the only test that depends
> on a device that has been added recently so it does not look like
> it's worth the trouble.

Agree (not worth of the trouble).
Thanks for checking.

Kind regards,
Petr

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