MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGudoHFqNdXDJM2uCQ9m7LzP0pAx=iVj1WBnKc4k9Ky1Xf5XmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wh-eTh=4g28Ec5W4pHNTaCSZWJdxVj4BH2sNE2hAA+cww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHG+anGcO1XePmLjb+Hatr4VQMiZ2FufXs8hT3JrHyGMAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjy_q9t4APgug9q-EBMRKAybXt9DQbyM9Egsh=F+0k2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHGYaWTCnL4GOR+4Lbcfg5qrdOtNjestGZOkgtUaTwdGrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgfNrMFQCFWFtn+UXjAdJAGAAFFJZ1JpEomTneza32A6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZAK6Duaf4mlgpZPP@yury-laptop> <CAHk-=wh1r3KfATA-JSdt3qt2y3sC=5U9+wZsbabW+dvPsqRCvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZALcbQoKA7K8k2gJ@yury-laptop> <CAHk-=wjit4tstX3q4DkiYLTD6zet_7j=CfjbvTMqtnOwmY7jzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZAOvUuxJP7tAKc1e@yury-laptop> <CAHk-=wh2U3a7AdvekB3uyAmH+NNk-CxN-NxGzQ=GZwjaEcM-tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whEwe1H1_YXki1aYwGnVwazY+z0=6deU-Zd855ogvLgww@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiHp3AkvFThpnGSA7k=KpPbXd0vurga+-8FqUNRbML_fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiHp3AkvFThpnGSA7k=KpPbXd0vurga+-8FqUNRbML_fA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:52:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whTO-VwB2ARhL9jg1k63L26YR0sfnpOKaGsEi=Va5zVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] vfs: avoid duplicating creds in faccessat if possible
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, serge@hallyn.com,
        paul@paul-moore.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 3:08=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Well, this particular patch at least boots for me for my normal
> config. Not that I've run any extensive tests, but I'm writing this
> email while running this patch, so ..

Hmm. I enabled the KUNIT tests, and used an odd CONFIG_NR_CPUS to test
this a bit more.

So in my situation, I have 64 threads, and so nr_cpu_ids is 64, and
CONFIG_NR_CPUS is 150.

Then one cpumask KUNIT test fails with

     # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:70
                  Expected ((unsigned int)150) =3D=3D cpumask_weight(&mask_=
all), but
                      ((unsigned int)150) =3D=3D 150 (0x96)
                      cpumask_weight(&mask_all) =3D=3D 64 (0x40)
              &mask_all contains CPUs 0-63

but I think that's actually a KUNIT test bug.

The KUNIT test there is

        KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, nr_cpumask_bits,
cpumask_weight(&mask_all), MASK_MSG(&mask_all));

and it should *not* expect the cpumask weight to be nr_cpumask_bits,
it should expect it to be nr_cpu_ids.

That only matters now that nr_cpumask_bits isn't the same as nr_cpu_ids./

Anyway, I still think that patch of mine is fine, and I think this
test failure only ends up being about the test, not the patch.

            Linus