On 1/25/19 11:46 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 7:42 AM Colin Ian King wrote:
On 25/01/2019 18:33, Kees Cook wrote:
Passing EPERM during syscall skipping was confusing since the test wasn't
actually exercising the errno evaluation -- it was just passing a literal
"1" (EPERM). In
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 7:42 AM Colin Ian King wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2019 18:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Passing EPERM during syscall skipping was confusing since the test wasn't
> > actually exercising the errno evaluation -- it was just passing a literal
> > "1" (EPERM). Instead, expand the tests to
On 25/01/2019 18:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> Passing EPERM during syscall skipping was confusing since the test wasn't
> actually exercising the errno evaluation -- it was just passing a literal
> "1" (EPERM). Instead, expand the tests to check both direct value returns
> (positive, 45000 in this case),
Passing EPERM during syscall skipping was confusing since the test wasn't
actually exercising the errno evaluation -- it was just passing a literal
"1" (EPERM). Instead, expand the tests to check both direct value returns
(positive, 45000 in this case), and errno values (negative, -ESRCH in this
ca
4 matches
Mail list logo
