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

[linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com]

Hi Andrea,

On Aug 20, 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> syscalls: add v7.3 syscall numbers

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

> fchroot01: test fchroot() with a directory fd

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING]? Linux 7.2 is the latest
stable release, while this test targets fchroot() from Linux 7.3.

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

> fchroot02: test fchroot() invalid arguments

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because the tested syscall is
not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot03: test fchroot() permission checks

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because the tested syscall is
not present in Linux 7.2?

>  * :manpage:`fchroot(2) `was introduced in Linux v7.3.

Could the space be moved after the closing backtick? As written, it becomes
part of the man-page role target.

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

> fchroot04: test fchroot() into failfs as root

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot05: test failfs root can not be referenced

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot06: test path walks under failfs root

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

> 	off += snprintf(upwards + off, sizeof(upwards) - off, "/..");

Could truncation be handled here? LTP accepts an arbitrary absolute TMPDIR.
With a sufficiently deep path, off grows past sizeof(upwards), the size
subtraction underflows, and the next iteration passes an out-of-bounds
pointer and a huge size to snprintf().

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

> fchroot07: test execve blocked by failfs root

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot08: test failfs root fork inheritance

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot09: test setns escape from failfs root

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

> 	SAFE_STAT(tst_tmpdir_path(), &st);
> 	TST_EXP_EXPR(st.st_dev == realcwd.st_dev &&
> 		st.st_ino == realcwd.st_ino,
> 		"working directory restored after setns()");

Could this stat "." and compare it with realroot instead? mntns_install()
sets both fs->pwd and fs->root to the mount namespace root. Calling stat on
an absolute tmpdir path succeeds regardless of the current working directory,
so a regression that leaves pwd unchanged would pass this check.

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

> fchroot10: test failfs entry without no_new_privs

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot11: test failfs entry with no_new_privs

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot12: test failfs entry with shared fs_struct

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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

> fchroot13: test failfs entry when chrooted

Could this subject be prefixed with [STAGING] because fchroot() and failfs
are not present in Linux 7.2?

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