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 C0CE4C433F5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3AD03C788C for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:27:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.4]) (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 E30E53C061B for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:27:01 +0100 (CET) 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 1B0E410007AD for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:27:00 +0100 (CET) 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 209EC210E2; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:27:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1647876420; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NMABLox8yap/biqNGDo9WicLI1luSQPbooereG+WCLI=; b=z6kJg8QomqHL0vcitucHE2787NgC7FwBonIAB9bzaM7xIHywoBf3Yb+8+OnLcbK4l7VToG h0Pucu/dah2aWk7tVA7sAH9yVjRESjhOiRhvfUc16l8lQIJkkvRnnLogagaYJh/G+NlFiQ q9w5T+E4SgYNHpzQmj6Og75z3SbMjAg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1647876420; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NMABLox8yap/biqNGDo9WicLI1luSQPbooereG+WCLI=; b=15TySS1u92lvtLcepUCPfti7gU2iImZtgi5zGZsrjnvm3LQFR9txmJXtR4urnAn3WzuuDD tXJk6ZiFS5xR0DDA== 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 CF4CB133B6; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id o0PALkOZOGLKEwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:26:59 +0000 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:29:16 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Richard Palethorpe Message-ID: References: <20220321133849.14924-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <87ils7corb.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ils7corb.fsf@suse.de> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] waitid10: Fix when coredumps are piped 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! > Reviewed-by: Richard Palethorpe > > BTW I thought that division by zero actually just resulted in zero or > INT_MAX on some platforms? (e.g. ARM) > > It's undefined behaviour, so I fail to see how this test has ever worked > on some architectures. Perhaps we should dereference a null/invalid > pointer instead? That wouldn't work since we are trying to get SIGFPE not SIGSEGV. See: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20220310105533.3012-1-chrubis@suse.cz/ Also if you can review this patch as well... -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp