Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] syscalls: splice07: New splice tst_fd iterator test

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> Yup, because there is nothing in the pipe (which you probably realise).
> 
> The question is, if we want to test actual splicing, should we fill the
> pipe in the lib?
>
> If so should that be an option that we set? TST_FD_FOREACH or
> TST_FD_FOREACH2 could take an opts struct for e.g. or even tst_test. I
> guess with TST_FD_FOREACH2 there is no need to do add anything now.

That would be much more complex. For splicing from a TCP socket I would
have to set up a TCP server, connect the socket there and feed the data
from a sever...

So maybe later on. I would like to avoid adding more complexity to the
patchset at this point and focus on testing errors for now.

> > +	if (fd_in->type == TST_FD_PIPE_READ) {
> > +		switch (fd_out->type) {
> > +		case TST_FD_FILE:
> > +		case TST_FD_PIPE_WRITE:
> > +		case TST_FD_UNIX_SOCK:
> > +		case TST_FD_INET_SOCK:
> > +		case TST_FD_MEMFD:
> > +			return;
> > +		default:
> > +		break;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (fd_out->type == TST_FD_PIPE_WRITE) {
> > +		switch (fd_in->type) {
> > +		/* While these combinations succeeed */
> > +		case TST_FD_FILE:
> > +		case TST_FD_MEMFD:
> > +			return;
> > +		/* And this complains about socket not being connected */
> > +		case TST_FD_INET_SOCK:
> > +			return;
> > +		default:
> > +		break;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* These produce EBADF instead of EINVAL */
> > +	switch (fd_out->type) {
> > +	case TST_FD_DIR:
> > +	case TST_FD_DEV_ZERO:
> > +	case TST_FD_PROC_MAPS:
> > +	case TST_FD_INOTIFY:
> > +	case TST_FD_PIPE_READ:
> > +		exp_errno = EBADF;
> > +	default:
> > +	break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (fd_in->type == TST_FD_PIPE_WRITE)
> > +		exp_errno = EBADF;
> > +
> > +	if (fd_in->type == TST_FD_OPEN_TREE || fd_out->type == TST_FD_OPEN_TREE ||
> > +	    fd_in->type == TST_FD_PATH || fd_out->type == TST_FD_PATH)
> > +		exp_errno = EBADF;
> 
> This seems like something that could change due to checks changing
> order.

I was hoping that kernel devs would look at the current state, which is
documented in these conditions and tell me how shold we set the
expectations. At least the open_tree() seems to differ from the rest in
several cases, so maybe needs to be aligned with the rest.

> This is a bit offtopic, but we maybe need errno sets, which would be
> useful for our other discussion on relaxing errno checking.

Indeed that is something we have to do either way.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

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