Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1705948
| From | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/seccomp: Test thread vs process killing |
| Date | 2017-08-08 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc1F0-zY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uaeQ1-2rm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <uaeQ1-2rm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <uc1F0-zY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> wrote: >> + /* Only the thread died. Let parent know this thread didn't die. */ > > This read a little odd to me. How about, "Only the created thread died. > Let parent know the this creating thread didn't die."? Sounds good. I've updated this to be more descriptive. >> + ASSERT_EQ(1, WIFEXITED(status)); > > This is probably nitpicky but, after reading the wait(2) man page, I > feel like this should be ASSERT_TRUE(WIFEXITED(status)) instead of > comparing to 1. There's no documented guarantee that 1 will be returned. That's a fair point. I've updated this and WIFSIGNALED now, thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 4/4] selftests/seccomp: Test thread vs process killing Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-08-03 05:20 +0200 Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/seccomp: Test thread vs process killing Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-08-08 03:40 +0200 Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/seccomp: Test thread vs process killing Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-08-08 03:40 +0200
csiph-web