On Mon, 6 May 2024 18:40:00 -0700 Joe Damato wrote: > Ah, sorry -- this is because I had assumed the test would run without > CAP_NET_ADMIN, but since: > > epoll_busy_poll.c:204:test_set_invalid:Expected -1 (-1) == ret (0) > > succeeds (ret = 0), clearly I am mistaken. Sorry about that. > > I think I'll spin up a v3 and I'll add a test with and without > CAP_NET_ADMIN to check both cases, which would probably be better anyway.
FWIW the tests run a in separate process from the harness, so it may be possible to drop privileges inside the test, without affecting other test cases. But I've never done it myself, so not sure how easy it is to do in practice..
