----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zeng Linggang" <[email protected]>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "ltp-list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2014 10:50:13 AM
> Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] mlock/mlock02.c: add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests
>
> Add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests for mlock(2).
>
> Signed-off-by: Zeng Linggang <[email protected]>
Hi,
part1 looks good to me, comments for part2 are inline.
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c | 65
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> index 811d141..79f1d29 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> @@ -20,13 +20,22 @@
> * ALGORITHM
> * test 1:
> * Call mlock with a NULL address. ENOMEM should be returned
> + * test 2:
> + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> + * resource limit was 0. EPERM should be returned
> + * test 3:
> + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> + * resource limit was nonzero, but tried to lock more memory than
> + * the limit permitted. ENOMEM should be returned
> */
>
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> +#include <pwd.h>
> #include "test.h"
> #include "usctest.h"
> +#include "safe_macros.h"
>
> char *TCID = "mlock02";
>
> @@ -36,21 +45,29 @@ struct test_case_t {
> void **addr;
> int len;
> int error;
> - void (*setupfunc) (struct test_case_t *);
> + void (*setupfunc) ();
If you don't want any parameters add void.
> + void (*cleanupfunc) (void);
> };
>
> static void *addr1;
> +static char addr2[1024];
> +static struct passwd *ltpuser;
> static void setup(void);
> static void setup1(struct test_case_t *);
> +static void setup2(void);
> +static void setup3(void);
> +static void cleanup2(void);
> static void cleanup(void);
> static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *);
>
> static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
> - {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1},
> + {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
> };
I think I misunderstood intent of **addr. As you outlined it
above, we can remove one pointer entirely along with addr1:
-static void *addr1;
struct test_case_t {
- void **addr;
+ void *addr;
static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
- {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
- {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
- {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
+ {NULL, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
+ {addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
+ {addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
- TEST(mlock(*(test->addr), test->len));
+ TEST(mlock(test->addr, test->len));
static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
-#else
- *test->addr = NULL;
I'm going to try this testcase on ia64 to have a look at that
ia64 specific setup.
Regards,
Jan
>
> int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(TC);
> -static int exp_enos[] = { ENOMEM, 0 };
> +static int exp_enos[] = { ENOMEM, EPERM, 0 };
>
> int main(int ac, char **av)
> {
> @@ -76,9 +93,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>
> static void setup(void)
> {
> + tst_require_root(NULL);
> +
> tst_sig(NOFORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
>
> TEST_PAUSE;
> +
> + ltpuser = SAFE_GETPWNAM(cleanup, "nobody");
> }
>
> static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
> @@ -88,6 +109,9 @@ static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
>
> TEST(mlock(*(test->addr), test->len));
>
> + if (test->cleanupfunc != NULL)
> + test->cleanupfunc();
> +
> if (TEST_RETURN != -1) {
> tst_resm(TFAIL, "mlock succeeded unexpectedly");
> return;
> @@ -111,6 +135,41 @@ static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
> #endif
> }
>
> +static void setup2(void)
> +{
> + struct rlimit rl;
> +
> + rl.rlim_max = 0;
> + rl.rlim_cur = 0;
> + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rl) != 0) {
> + tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup,
> + "setrlimit failed to set the resource for "
> + "RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to check for mlock()");
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, ltpuser->pw_uid);
> +}
> +
> +static void setup3(void)
> +{
> + struct rlimit rl;
> +
> + rl.rlim_max = 1;
> + rl.rlim_cur = 1;
> + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rl) != 0) {
> + tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup,
> + "setrlimit failed to set the resource for "
> + "RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to check for mlock()");
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, ltpuser->pw_uid);
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup2(void)
> +{
> + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, 0);
> +}
> +
> static void cleanup(void)
> {
> TEST_CLEANUP;
> --
> 1.8.4.2
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
