On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:45:56AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote:
HI Andrew
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:55 PM jeffxu@chromium.org wrote:
From: Jeff Xu jeffxu@chromium.org
Add more testcases and increase test coverage, e.g. add get_vma_size to check VMA size and prot bits.
This commit message is ridiculously short for such a massive change, even for test code.
Could you please pull the self-test part of this patch series to mm-unstable ? It will help to prevent regression.
No, please don't.
This needs review.
These tests establish a precedent as to how mseal should behave, this is something that needs community review, not to just be taken.
There's already been a great deal of confusion/contentious discussion around mseal() and its implementation.
Pushing in ~800 lines of test code asserting how mseal() should behave without review isn't helping things.
Also, this is a really unusual way to send a series - why is this a 2/2 in reply to the 1/2 and no cover letter? Why is this change totally unrelated to the other patch?
Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?
Sorry to be contentious here, but I think we need to find a more constructive, collaborative way forward with mseal() and to act with a little more caution, given the problems that the original series has caused I'd think this is in the best interests of all.
Thanks for understanding!
The first part ([PATCH v1 1/2] mseal: fix mmap(FIXED) error code) can be ignored as Liam proposed to fix it differently.
Thanks -Jeff
-Jeff
Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu jeffxu@chromium.org
tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c | 826 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 759 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c index e7991e5fdcf3..4b3f883aae17 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c