From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD6FCA0FE6 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79153CE03A for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:13:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D039A3CBB99 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:13:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A165C1001598 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:13:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE4A21862; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:13:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1693570424; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HdZLmcyvGUooiMn2rzOdiX0llyewRwRuNt2EDMwp8VU=; b=z+IAiUoLMsL4w28J3hFhsqvgxyXvgYnmOVqdlMcAaqgPLh91bjfmHTwNKL1x54hb01coqa 6M5mB+kQICx0obe4SXVnphlF1Ij6ynI9cC2kspxNvtDFjVyrXONj4f2PX7g9YxFNOqZGQT 1MtEovu52Vk6hE9XnuFf3dEFrr1n7xY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1693570424; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HdZLmcyvGUooiMn2rzOdiX0llyewRwRuNt2EDMwp8VU=; b=M95kuimR9FsDkCT9knuGmKUWzrDZvYX7i2vJS2GF8wr+qO+WjuJYUHj9DKhT3OsoSNhPUm lhBMMLbGeYBer6Dw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EB7B1358B; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id wQvcC3jV8WTbGwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 01 Sep 2023 12:13:44 +0000 From: Avinesh Kumar To: Cyril Hrubis Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 17:43:41 +0530 Message-ID: <2556714.ltBL1Nq8q0@localhost> Organization: SUSE In-Reply-To: References: <20230818112023.18159-1-akumar@suse.de> <20230818112023.18159-4-akumar@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 4/4] syscalls/mmap04: Rewrite the test using new LTP API X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Cyril, On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 3:33:46 PM IST Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! > This is nearly identical to the mmap02.c and the same comments apply > here. > > Also the test does not check the PROT_EXEC part at all. If we wanted to > properly test PROT_EXEC we would have to copy a function code to the > file first then execute it, something that mprotect04 does, but since > that flag is already tested in mprotect04 it does not make that much > sense to have it here as well. Yes, I agree this test does not cover PROT_EXEC scenario. So, if this case is covered in mprotect04, do you recommend dropping this test altogether from here? -- Regards, Avinesh -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp