On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 01:08:07 AM Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2014-04-29 23:38, Paul Moore wrote: > >@@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > > ctx = seccomp_init(SCMP_ACT_ALLOW); > > if (ctx == NULL) > > > >- goto out; > >+ return ENOMEM; > > > > rc = util_filter_output(&opts, ctx); > > if (rc) > > Returning an errno code verbatim from the program seems like > something prone to "failure"; such an errno code may have a value > that cannot fit into WEXITSTATUS($?), for example. > In addition, some errno codes are different between architectures, > so users that do want to inspect $? also need to know the particular > ENOMEM value.
I really don't expect users to ever run the tests*. The tests are largely for the libseccomp developers to make sure we don't break anything, and there is probably some value for packagers as well so that they can do a quick sanity check. * There has been some discussion on the list about packaging the test separately for use with some embedded build systems, but that is something for another day. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ libseccomp-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
