On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 5:32 PM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > On 6/24/25 02:21, Jesse Rosenstock wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:22 PM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > >> tl;dr: commit 105a72fd53c2 > > > > This handles long masks differently than util-linux: > > It handles them the way my debian variant laptop handles them: > > $ taskset $( printf %99999s | tr ' ' 0 )f echo ok > ok > $ dpkg-query -S $(which taskset) > util-linux: /usr/bin/taskset > landley@driftwood:~/linux/linux$ aptitude show util-linux | grep Version > Version: 2.38.1-5+deb12u3devuan1 > > If util-linux has had version skew and behaves inconsistently, I'm not > sure this is a good thing to test?
I don't see any version skew. This is what I reported for util-linux in http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2025-June/030748.html The problem is this isn't what toybox does: % ./toybox taskset $( printf %99999s | tr ' ' 0 )f echo ok taskset: failed to set pid 1458379's affinity: Invalid argument Could you take a look at my http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2025-June/030748.html patch again? > It's easy to make work, the question is whether diverging from the > gnu/dammit (or the linux/notinventedhere) version is worth it. I ended up adding zero-pid support to util-linux (which toybox already had). https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/util-linux/util-linux.git/commit/?id=6c87a3ac5ee96194e0e461db24b1bbfe369bdb59 > $ (taskset -p 1 $PID $BASHPID) > pid 15207's current affinity mask: 1 > pid 15207's new affinity mask: 1 > > That's just LEVELS of wrong... I think that's just an input validation bug. Only one pid is documented as being supported. _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
