Re: new syscalls

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> How sophisticated this has to be?
>> 
>> umm
>> 
>> - test basic functionality
>> 
>> - test things which should fail: syscall arguments out-of-bounds,
>>  negative syscall args, etc.  invalid fd.  valid fd but for the wrong type
>>  of file.
>> 
>> - if you can, something which will test the 32bit->64bit->32bit
>>  conversions which 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernel needs to do.
>
> Somehow, I knew I didn't have to ask :)

Here you go:

http://www.xmailserver.org/epoll_pwait_test.c

There is a problem with the test we have inside the kernel about the size 
of sigset_t, from the kernel (8 bytes on i386) and the glibc one (128 bytes):

         if (sigmask) {
                 if (sigsetsize != sizeof(sigset_t))
                         return -EINVAL;
                 if (copy_from_user(&ksigmask, sigmask, sizeof(ksigmask)))
                         return -EFAULT;
                 sigdelsetmask(&ksigmask, sigmask(SIGKILL) | sigmask(SIGSTOP));
                 sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &ksigmask, &sigsaved);
         }

ATM I left the check and I bolt 8 inside the test software, but this needs 
nicer handling. Typical run will show:

davide@debstar:~/tmp$ ./epoll_pwait_test
Testing from wrong epfd type            : OK
Testing from closed epfd type           : OK
Testing numevents <= 0                  : OK
Testing numevents too big               : OK
Testing wrong sigmask size              : OK
Testing getevents when none available   : OK
Testing getevents when one available    : OK
Testing signal when blocked             : OK
Testing signal when non blocked         : OK




- Davide