From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 203A1383603E for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:48:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 203A1383603E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from tarox.wildebeest.org (83-87-18-245.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.87.18.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFFB530005B6; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9EF964000C41; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <927d12654e85b5352688fb9bfefda08171b73183.camel@klomp.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tst-pidfd.c: Test is UNSUPPORTED without PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS From: Mark Wielaard To: Adhemerval Zanella , Christian Brauner Cc: Florian Weimer , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:48:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2A731D33-0573-40E6-B781-96C3693F169C@linaro.org> References: <20220626205915.33201-1-mark@klomp.org> <20220626205915.33201-4-mark@klomp.org> <87h747nmud.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <874k06cq9t.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20220627115141.s4zjaac7ixceq7rs@wittgenstein> <87sfnq9nhj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20220627150826.f4ezg3t4k7sy7kih@wittgenstein> <2A731D33-0573-40E6-B781-96C3693F169C@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:48:04 -0000 Hi Adhemerval, On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 12:14 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > You should see EINVAL, I think. >=20 > Yeah, I forgot about the invalid flag argument. So it does seems a > seccomp issue and I am not sure sure if we should paper over it on > glibc test. I don't think it is papering over the issue. We do detect the EPERM and record it as an environment that is UNSUPPORTED. Which is imho a better state than still trying to test and then FAILing the testcase. Note that in the buildbot the test results and out files are put into the bunsendb so that you can easily see why a particular test was UNSUPPORTED (or why it FAILED). We might not like that there are execution environments where some syscalls return EPERM, but (sadly) they exist and handling and recording that in the test (instead of simply failing) seems the best way to handle that. It also makes sure we have a zero-FAIL testsuite, which is really useful. Cheers, Mark