On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 04:35:29 Vivi wrote:
>> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/adjtimex/adjtimex02.c
>> +++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/adjtimex/adjtimex02.c
>> @@ -122,12 +122,7 @@
>> void (*cleanup) ();
>> int exp_errno;
>> } test_cases[] = {
>> -#ifndef UCLINUX
>> - /* Skip since uClinux does not implement memory protection */
>> - {
>> - (struct timex *)-1, NULL, NULL, EFAULT},
>> -#endif
>> - {
>> + { (struct timex *)-1, NULL, NULL, EFAULT},{
>> &buff, setup2, NULL, EINVAL}, {
>> &buff, setup3, NULL, EINVAL}, {
>> &buff, setup4, NULL, EINVAL}, {
>> @@ -159,7 +154,18 @@
>> Tst_count = 0;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < TST_TOTAL; ++i) {
>> +#ifdef UCLINUX
>> /*
>> + * Skip first case since uClinux does not implement
>> + * memory protection.
>> + */
>> + if (i == 0) {
>> + tst_resm(TCONF, "uClinux does not
>> implement" + " memory
>> protection."); + continue;
>> + }
>> +#endif
>
> we should be able to handle bad pointers like -1 and NULL. the kernel's check
> access func should force EFAULT. so why do we need this new if code ?
If so, then there's a lot of code in LTP that needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks
Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand
malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you
can protect your company and customers by using code signing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
