@@ -774,7 +774,17 @@ static int expect_vfprintf(int llen, size_t c, const char *expected, const char
FILE *memfile;
va_list args;
- fd = memfd_create("vfprintf", 0);
+ /* silence warning for kernel >= v6.2:
+ *
+ * "memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=<pid>"
+ *
+ * try MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL (0x0008U) flag for kernels >= v6.2, error means
+ * the kernel is too old and require old flags
+ */
+ fd = memfd_create("vfprintf", 0x0008U);
+ if (fd == -1)
+ fd = memfd_create("vfprintf", 0);
+
if (fd == -1) {
pad_spc(llen, 64, "[FAIL]\n");
return 1;
pass MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL flag to memfd_create() to silence this kernel warning inserted in the middle of the whole test result: memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=1 The mixed test result looks this: Running test 'vfprintf' 0 emptymemfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=1 'init' "" = "" [OK] From v6.2, MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL must be passed for the non-executable memfd. Since MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is a whole new flag, to avoid adding ugly #ifdef macros, let's use magic number here directly. Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)