linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] syscalls: fanotify: Add macro to require specific mark types

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:27:38 +0000
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@...gle.com>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc:     jack@...e.com, amir73il@...il.com, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
        khazhy@...gle.com, kernel@...labora.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] syscalls: fanotify: Add macro to require specific
 mark types

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 06:17:24PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Like done for init flags and event types, and a macro to require a
> specific mark type.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h
> index a2be183385e4..c67db3117e29 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h
> @@ -373,4 +373,9 @@ static inline int fanotify_mark_supported_by_kernel(uint64_t flag)
>  	return rval;
>  }
>  
> +#define REQUIRE_MARK_TYPE_SUPPORTED_ON_KERNEL(mark_type) do { \
> +	fanotify_init_flags_err_msg(#mark_type, __FILE__, __LINE__, tst_brk_, \
> +				    fanotify_mark_supported_by_kernel(mark_type)); \
> +} while (0)
> +
>  #endif /* __FANOTIFY_H__ */

A nit, but I'm of the opinion that s/_ON_/_BY_ within the macro name. Otherwise,
this looks OK to me.

Reviewed-by: Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@...gle.com>

/M