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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FAKE_REPLY_C,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F37AC169C4 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 19:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E4F218D3 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 19:52:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549482735; bh=w+DGFDTLkP77xayNW0w9JiSIyI48OufI8Y2ZmervkNo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:From; b=jdvvFUTUwjsiY5mQJXkFx08Pabps3jtOlJe42Usk2ljIKNr71vgulXH3DyLKD3XjA HhTpFz/kBD1WzPneZDWrst3dlDHTTvrw1gfmJoBtvbf2dGyuLy2SIibS8Ad+daKTJ0 yCDCLFZ4PZxbwvta0YhJT+INFPjMfwTUAlpIe9Ns= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726448AbfBFTwJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:52:09 -0500 Received: from mail-yw1-f65.google.com ([209.85.161.65]:43063 "EHLO mail-yw1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726161AbfBFTwJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:52:09 -0500 Received: by mail-yw1-f65.google.com with SMTP id u200so3632272ywu.10; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:52:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=MSVhCOK7rMXrMnBSLKltiXtG9QzJqhjoir0Y7Ntls3c=; b=FKUKxUoasMRjF57OKehoZon53ZPx1HG813SjdHT+f3mRavOKEvvk4d1PMufjjKhkl7 IbUKhenmXA7gNeE9QuPFX/vJmnYwLVhQ/ZJMDNpM6v0EjCVYoAWeLdd24u14xrtROnfP 2W0POEDa8IW8hKwMy5pdZopsrgCZQhpwIosWBS6l/TrKTPDxH3BluLkrXZ+lLvPKWkB0 /FI+zDeiXgZVQ4a2cp3urHpewQKG/6dRHJYcN+Tb2+M8UYV4siPEqc/9LM9DMLhAONqF babm2lccBSH9/Z/KASR1hT6oGLbBx6CGIzgUGjnk41Ybb2WW65p/GRoOg7dTy3g1K490 sl6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub9OFLsCUGvQ9NlFzb+ILcqi6Nd3v7GDvZod6qjvAEWy4JhLAOk rcZATUZR3LQLVZ0jNdaVmzs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYgS5fB6kOCNQjl03Mf1yuO+8Z1DoiVZcLE9r6Xftfdoc3AsbgaRnWRQqlIHzuvrbFKbDnfpg== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e8c9:: with SMTP id r192mr3641239ywe.321.1549482727690; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (c-73-71-40-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.71.40.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e194sm5777996ywa.85.2019.02.06.11.52.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:52:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 11:52:02 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Zev Weiss Cc: Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, yzaikin@google.com, brendanhiggins@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] test_sysctl: add tests for >32-bit values written to 32-bit integers Message-ID: <20190206195202.GF11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Thanks for the patches, please include akpm@linux-foundation.org in the future, as we can merge the changes through Andrew as well. Also please Cc yzaikin@google.com, brendanhiggins@google.com in follow ups for now. They are looking at the sysctl testing code as well. Some feedback below: In-Reply-To: <20181227111231.12912-2-zev@bewilderbeest.net> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 05:12:29AM -0600, Zev Weiss wrote: > +run_wideint_tests() > +{ > + # check negative and positive 64-bit values, with and without > + # bits set in the lower 31, and with and without bit 31 (sign > + # bit of a 32-bit int) set. None of these are representable > + # in 32 bits, and hence all should fail. > + check_failure 0x0000010000000000 > + check_failure 0x0000010080000000 > + check_failure 0x000001ff7fffffff > + check_failure 0x000001ffffffffff > + check_failure 0xffffffff7fffffff > + check_failure 0xffffffffffffffff This s64 version of -1 > + check_failure 0xffffff0000000000 > + check_failure 0xffffff0080000000 > +} It was still unclear from the comments and manually looking at the values why they are clear candidates to always test from all respective 64-bit values. A comment per each would be useful. Luis