On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:55:49AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:28:21AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > This adds the promised selftest for binderfs. It will verify the following
> > things:
> > - binderfs mounting works
> > - binder device allocation works
> > - performing a binder ioctl() request through a binderfs device works
> > - binder device removal works
> > - binder-control removal fails
> > - binderfs unmounting works
> >
> > The tests are performed both privileged and unprivileged. The latter
> > verifies that binderfs behaves correctly in user namespaces.
> >
> > Cc: Todd Kjos <tk...@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@ubuntu.com>
>
> Now I am just nit-picking:
I would've been surprised if someone wouldn't have. :)
>
> > +static void write_to_file(const char *filename, const void *buf, size_t
> > count,
> > + int allowed_errno)
> > +{
> > + int fd, saved_errno;
> > + ssize_t ret;
> > +
> > + fd = open(filename, O_WRONLY | O_CLOEXEC);
> > + if (fd < 0)
> > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s - Failed to open file %s\n",
> > + strerror(errno), filename);
> > +
> > + ret = write_nointr(fd, buf, count);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + if (allowed_errno && (errno == allowed_errno)) {
> > + close(fd);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + goto on_error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if ((size_t)ret != count)
> > + goto on_error;
>
> if ret < count, you are supposed to try again with the remaining data,
> right? A write() implementation can just take one byte at a time.
>
> Yes, for your example here that isn't going to happen as the kernel
> should be handling a larger buffer than that, but note that if you use
> this code elsewhere, it's not really correct because:
Yeah, I know you should retry but for the test I'm not really willing to
keep track of where I was in the buffer and so on. If the test fails
because of that I'd say to count it as failed and move on.
>
> > +
> > + close(fd);
> > + return;
> > +
> > +on_error:
> > + saved_errno = errno;
>
> If you do a short write, there is no error, so who knows what errno you
> end up with here.
>
> Anyway, just one other minor question that might be relevant:
>
> > + printf("Allocated new binder device with major %d, minor %d, and name
> > %s\n",
> > + device.major, device.minor, device.name);
>
> Aren't tests supposed to print their output in some sort of normal
> format? I thought you were supposed to use ksft_print_msg() so that
> tools can properly parse the output.
I can switch the printf()s over to ksft_print_msg().
Thanks!
Christian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
