Re: [PATCH 10/27] selftests/landlock: Assert audit initialization in fixture setups
flat view
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Date: 2026-10-08 14:44:04
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Medium] selftests: cascading test failures due to skipped teardown on ASSERT_LE abort -- commit 924f6036b77ebee776959fad4d5c2f2f2ab050ad Author: Günther Noack [off-list ref] selftests/landlock: Assert audit initialization in fixture setups This commit replaces EXPECT_* with ASSERT_* macros for audit initialization in Landlock tests to prevent tests from proceeding with an invalid audit file descriptor when initialization fails.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c index 9884ce9917db7..779a7bf477a95 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c@@ -7508,7 +7508,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(audit_layout1) set_cap(_metadata, CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL); self->audit_fd = audit_init_with_exe_filter(&self->audit_filter); - EXPECT_LE(0, self->audit_fd); + ASSERT_LE(0, self->audit_fd);
[Severity: Medium] Will this change cause cascading test failures when audit initialization fails? When ASSERT_LE fails (for example, if auditd is running), it aborts the fixture setup immediately. In kselftest_harness, this causes the child process to exit before clearing _metadata->no_teardown. In the parent process, the teardown wrapper checks !__atomic_test_and_set(_metadata->no_teardown, __ATOMIC_RELAXED). Because no_teardown remains true, the parent entirely skips FIXTURE_TEARDOWN_PARENT(). Since prepare_layout() created TMP_DIR on the host filesystem prior to the setup failure, skipping the teardown leaks TMP_DIR. Subsequent tests that use prepare_layout() will call create_directory(..., TMP_DIR), which asserts that mkdir(path, 0700) == 0. The leftover directory causes mkdir to return -1 with EEXIST, triggering another assertion failure. Does the teardown need to be called even if audit_init_with_exe_filter() fails, or should we retain EXPECT_LE so the setup completes and no_teardown is cleared? -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261008142604.39107-2-gnoack3000@gmail.com?part=10