Re: [LTP] syscalls: add v7.3 syscall numbers

[linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com]

Hi Andrea,

On Aug 19, 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> syscalls: add v7.3 syscall numbers

--- [PATCH 3/16] ---

> /* Roots of kernel internal pseudo filesystems, usable as fd sentinels */
> #ifndef FD_PIDFS_ROOT
> # define FD_PIDFS_ROOT		-10002

Could these new public macros use kernel-doc comments? Public macros added
under include/lapi must be documented in syntax recognized by linuxdoc.

--- [PATCH 4/16] ---

> fchroot01: test fchroot() with a directory fd

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() from the 7.3 development
cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 5/16] ---

> fchroot02: test fchroot() invalid arguments

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() from the 7.3 development
cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 6/16] ---

> fchroot03: test fchroot() permission checks

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() from the 7.3 development
cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 7/16] ---

> fchroot04: test fchroot() into failfs as root

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 8/16] ---

> fchroot05: test failfs root can not be referenced

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 9/16] ---

> fchroot06: test path walks under failfs root

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

> #define UPWARDS "../../../../../../../../../.."

Could this walk continue until the inode stops changing instead? LTP accepts
any absolute TMPDIR, so a path more than ten components deep leaves this
lookup at an intermediate directory and fails the root inode comparison on a
correct kernel.

--- [PATCH 10/16] ---

> fchroot07: test execve blocked by failfs root

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 11/16] ---

> fchroot08: test failfs root fork inheritance

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 12/16] ---

> fchroot09: test setns escape from failfs root

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

> 		SAFE_STAT(".", &st);
> 		TST_EXP_EXPR(st.st_dev == realcwd.st_dev &&
> 			st.st_ino == realcwd.st_ino,

Should this compare "." with realroot instead? mntns_install() resolves the
target namespace's "/" and assigns it to both fs->root and fs->pwd; it does
not restore the previous working directory. Unless the test starts in "/",
this comparison fails on a correct kernel.

--- [PATCH 13/16] ---

> fchroot10: test failfs entry without no_new_privs

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

> static void setup(void)
> {
> 	ltpuser = SAFE_GETPWNAM("nobody");
> }

Could setup query PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS and return TCONF when it is already
set? The bit is inherited and cannot be cleared, so such a launcher makes
this test exercise the allowed-entry path and report a kernel failure.

--- [PATCH 14/16] ---

> fchroot11: test failfs entry with no_new_privs

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

> 	TST_EXP_FAIL(unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), EPERM,
> 		"user namespace creation blocked by the failfs root");

Could a separate unprivileged child first prove that user-namespace creation
works, with TCONF when the environment blocks it? Runtime policy, seccomp, or
an LSM can return EPERM even with CONFIG_USER_NS=y, making this assertion pass
without testing the failfs restriction.

--- [PATCH 15/16] ---

> fchroot12: test failfs entry with shared fs_struct

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

--- [PATCH 16/16] ---

> fchroot13: test failfs entry when chrooted

Could the subject carry the "[STAGING]" prefix? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() and failfs from the 7.3
development cycle and is placed in runtest/staging.

Verdict - Needs revision

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

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