[LTP] [PATCH] ioctl_pidfd02-06: Add CONFIG_USER_NS and CONFIG_PID_NS to needs_kconfigs

[Petr Vorel]

> Hi,

> > On Mon Dec 15, 2025 at 5:52 PM CET, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > > > And https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/user_namespaces.7.html.

> > > > > Yeah, I understand that. The dependency of CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID is also
> > > > > visible in kernel sources (e.g. fs/nsfs.c). But my question was different:
> > > > > Do we now prefer everything kind of document with .needs_kconfigs, even it's
> > > > > possible to detect it otherwise? (speed of parsing kconfig, kind of hard request
> > > > > for kconfig being available even we can figure the support otherwise).

> > > > I believe we shouldn't see this as black/white but use this feature when
> > > > it's really needed. This is the case.

> > > Sure, .needs_kconfigs is used when test request some functionality based on
> > > kconfig.  But many tests use /proc or /sys based detection (e.g. ioctl_ns06.c)
> > > or based on certain errno, see include/lapi/syscalls.h or
> > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h) because these were
> > > added before LTP supported kconfig. Later, when kconfig was added it was
> > > considering as a last resort (when there was no way to detect dependency
> > > otherwise).

> > > Have we decide to move everything into kconfig?

> > > I'm not sure myself.  needs_kconfigs is simpler and obvious, but it requires
> > > kernel config.  I suppose the speed of parsing config is not an issue.

> > > It'd be nice to mention the resolution (preferred vs. only if no other way to
> > > detect the support) into
> > > https://linux-test-project.readthedocs.io/en/latest/developers/writing_tests.html

> > Feel free to add this comment, but for me it's obvious that if a
> > feature can't be present in the kernel due to kconfigs we should check
> > kconfig :-)

> I've just taken another look at this and it appears the test would still
> fail if the config is not present or if KCONFIG_SKIP_CHECK is set, in
> which case perhaps the run time detection may be preferred as it will
> still work in these cases?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious. IMHO kconfig check for CONFIG_USER_NS and
CONFIG_PID_NS is equal to checking for /proc/self/ns/user and /proc/self/ns/pid.

"runtime detection" you mean looking at /proc, but actually both ways are
"runtime detections" because LTP expects correct kernel config for running
kernel or looks into /proc/config.gz.

Just looking at /proc is faster and works without KCONFIG_SKIP_CHECK. OTOH
kconfig is somehow documenting it. It could be documented in normal test doc if
we inspect /proc.

@Li @Cyril, I'm sorry to raise this again (I haven't found a thread in which we
discussed it last time). Which one do we prefer in case both can be used?

> I'm not sure how common either of those cases are though?

> Would it be better to have the run time detection in tst_kconfig_check
> as a fall back in case the config is not present?
> Then the tests can just define the needs_kconfigs and not have to worry
> about other checks.

Using both looks to me overkill.

Kind regards,
Petr

> > > or into upcommig doc/developers/ground_rules.rst
> > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20251215124404.16395-2-chrubis@suse.cz/

> > > Kind regards,
> > > Petr

> > > > > And if we decide for forcing kconfig, we should update ioctl_ns06.c, which does
> > > > > /proc based detection (i.e. to use the same approach).

> > > > I didn't check this, but I'm pretty sure we should go all around and
> > > > verify many other tests with the same issue. We should do it in this
> > > > patch-set or on a searate one.


> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Petr

> > So what we do with the patch? Should we merge it?

> I'm happy to go through and update other tests in this patch or another.

> Thanks
> Terry