[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fspick:add coverage for fspick01.c

[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fspick:add coverage for fspick01.c

[YouZhi Zhao]

expand the test items after setting FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE to include re-fetching the mount point attributes and verifying whether the file system is set to read-only.

Signed-off-by: Youzhi Zhao <zhaoyouzhi@uniontech.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
index d3309a912..7aabb1d9e 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
  */
 #include "tst_test.h"
 #include "lapi/fsmount.h"
+#include <sys/statvfs.h>
+

 #define MNTPOINT		"mntpoint"
 #define TCASE_ENTRY(_flags)	{.name = "Flag " #_flags, .flags = _flags}
@@ -39,7 +41,7 @@ static void run(unsigned int n)

 	TEST(fsconfig(fspick_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "ro", NULL, 0));
 	if (TST_RET == -1) {
-		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG) failed");
+		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG) ro failed");
 		goto out;
 	}

@@ -48,7 +50,19 @@ static void run(unsigned int n)
 		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE) failed");
 		goto out;
 	}
-
+
+	struct statvfs buf;
+    	if (statvfs(MNTPOINT, &buf) == -1) {
+        	tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "statvfs() failed");
+        	return -1;
+    	}
+    	if(buf.f_flag & ST_RDONLY)
+	{
+		tst_res(TPASS, "%s: fspick() and reconfigure succeeded, filesystem is read-only", tc->name);
+	}else
+	{
+		tst_res(TFAIL, "%s: Filesystem is not read-only after reconfigure", tc->name);
+	}
 	tst_res(TPASS, "%s: fspick() passed", tc->name);

 out:
--
2.43.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fspick:add coverage for fspick01.c

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

Hi!

This test is meant to test fspick() syscall, but this patch is actually 
adding one more check for fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG), which is probably 
the reason why this should be done inside an another test under fsconfig 
testing suite. For this reason, the patch will be rejected.

Best regards,
Andrea Cervesato

On 9/2/24 08:12, YouZhi Zhao wrote:
> expand the test items after setting FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE to include re-fetching the mount point attributes and verifying whether the file system is set to read-only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Youzhi Zhao <zhaoyouzhi@uniontech.com>
> ---
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
> index d3309a912..7aabb1d9e 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fspick/fspick01.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
>    */
>   #include "tst_test.h"
>   #include "lapi/fsmount.h"
> +#include <sys/statvfs.h>
> +
>
>   #define MNTPOINT		"mntpoint"
>   #define TCASE_ENTRY(_flags)	{.name = "Flag " #_flags, .flags = _flags}
> @@ -39,7 +41,7 @@ static void run(unsigned int n)
>
>   	TEST(fsconfig(fspick_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "ro", NULL, 0));
>   	if (TST_RET == -1) {
> -		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG) failed");
> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG) ro failed");
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>
> @@ -48,7 +50,19 @@ static void run(unsigned int n)
>   		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE) failed");
>   		goto out;
>   	}
> -
> +
> +	struct statvfs buf;
> +    	if (statvfs(MNTPOINT, &buf) == -1) {
> +        	tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "statvfs() failed");
> +        	return -1;
> +    	}
> +    	if(buf.f_flag & ST_RDONLY)
> +	{
> +		tst_res(TPASS, "%s: fspick() and reconfigure succeeded, filesystem is read-only", tc->name);
> +	}else
> +	{
> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "%s: Filesystem is not read-only after reconfigure", tc->name);
> +	}
>   	tst_res(TPASS, "%s: fspick() passed", tc->name);
>
>   out:
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fspick:add coverage for fspick01.c

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> This test is meant to test fspick() syscall, but this patch is actually 
> adding one more check for fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG), which is probably 
> the reason why this should be done inside an another test under fsconfig 
> testing suite. For this reason, the patch will be rejected.

Quite contrary, it checks that the final call to fspick() with
FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE does apply the changes to the filesystem.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp