Re: [PATCH selftest fails!] m68k: Wire up execveat

[David Drysdale]

[Re-send from a different email address because I apparently can't send 
plaintext from gMail on my phone.]

On 21 Dec 2014 09:37, "Andreas Schwab" <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>  > Check success of execveat(5,
> 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy', 0)... [FAIL] (child 792
> exited with 126 not 127)
>
> POSIX says
> (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_08_02):
>
>      If a command is not found, the exit status shall be 127. If the
>      command name is found, but it is not an executable utility, the exit
>      status shall be 126.
> Andreas.
>

That sounds like a bit of a grey area -- is ENAMETOOLONG nearer to 
ENOENT or EACCES?   Maybe it's best to make the test allow either (given 
that it's not a test of shell behaviour).

I can update the test to do that, but it probably won't be until the new 
year I'm afraid.

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/