From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-88603-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 97955 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2017 13:07:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 97935 invoked by uid 89); 26 Dec 2017 13:07:49 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:979
X-HELO: albireo.enyo.de
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tst-ttyname: skip the test when /dev/ptmx is not available
References: <20171225114806.GB4341@altlinux.org>
	<87a7y6u0u7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<20171225191256.GA8591@altlinux.org>
	<CAKCAbMinevgdXqj2-YKkVuJw_uhzOdYhfx7A_Q98fr=FVbB8TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171225210058.GA10404@altlinux.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 13:07:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20171225210058.GA10404@altlinux.org> (Dmitry V. Levin's message
	of "Tue, 26 Dec 2017 00:00:58 +0300")
Message-ID: <874lodskm6.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00903.txt.bz2

* Dmitry V. Levin:

> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:09:56PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 07:19:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >> * Dmitry V. Levin:
>> >>
>> >> > * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-ttyname.c (do_in_chroot_1): Skip the
>> >> > test instead of failing in case of an error returned by posix_openpt.
>> >>
>> >> I think the test failure is real in this case.  I wouldn't it be?
>> >
>> > No, /dev/ptmx is intentionally missing in the environment where this test
>> > failed.
>> 
>> Why?
>
> It's a restricted environment.

I don't think the glibc test suite is supposed to pass in such an
environment.  If you don't provide /dev/null, /sys, or /proc to the
tests, some of them will fail as well.  I still think that the current
test accurately reflects the inadequacy of your test environment.