* [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results
@ 2010-07-16 4:19 Mitani
2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mitani @ 2010-07-16 4:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp-list
Hi,
With RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, I noticed that "Containers" test failed but
"Containers" is PASS in log results:
---<log results file>-------------
...
hangup01 PASS 0
Containers PASS 0
BindMounts PASS 0
...
----------------
---<detail in redirected file>-------------
...
check_netns_enabled 1 TFAIL : unshare syscall smoke test failed:
errno=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument
Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns tests.
...
----------------
The source which returned with "Invalid argument" is
"check_netns_enabled.c":
---<check_netns_enabled.c>-------------
main()
{
/* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities.
*/
if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) {
tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test
failed");
}
tst_exit();
}
----------------
In RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, unshare() does not support the argument
"CLONE_NEWNET".
But I feel strange that log results is "PASS" in spite of "TFAIL" exit.
"container_test.sh" which calls "check_netns_enabled.c" is as follows:
---<container_test.sh>-------------
...
check_netns_enabled
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
echo "Running netns tests."
runnetnstest.sh
else
echo "Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns
tests."
fi
...
----------------
According to above source, "check_netns_enabled.c" is only the judgement
whether "runnetnstest.sh" test can be called or not.
So, I think that "TFAIL" is not suitable for the test impossibility
message.
"TCONF" is more suitable for the message than "TFAIL", I think.
But, if "TCONF" is used instead of "TFAIL", "tst_exit" returns with 0.
And the test shell "runnetnstest.sh" is called against intention.
I thought up two ways of solutions.
(1) Insert "exit(1)" just after "tst_resm()" of "check_netns_enabled.c"
(2) Replace "TFAIL" with "TWARN", instead of "TCONF".
But above solutions are both irregular measures, I think.
If there are other good measures, please give me advice.
In the following, I nominate a temporary patch for an example:
Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>
===(1)=========
--- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12
02:01:45.000000000 +0900
+++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16
11:58:14.000000000 +0900
@@ -43,7 +43,8 @@
{
/* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities.
*/
if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) {
- tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test
failed");
+ tst_resm (TCONF | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test
failed");
+ exit (1);
}
tst_exit();
}
============
===(2)=========
--- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12
02:01:45.000000000 +0900
+++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16
11:56:47.000000000 +0900
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
{
/* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities.
*/
if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) {
- tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test
failed");
+ tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test
failed");
}
tst_exit();
}
============
Regards--
-Tomonori Mitani
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results 2010-07-16 4:19 [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results Mitani @ 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Garrett Cooper @ 2010-07-16 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mitani; +Cc: ltp-list On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote: > Hi, > > With RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, I noticed that "Containers" test failed but > "Containers" is PASS in log results: > > ---<log results file>------------- > ... > hangup01 PASS 0 > Containers PASS 0 > BindMounts PASS 0 > ... > ---------------- > > ---<detail in redirected file>------------- > ... > check_netns_enabled 1 TFAIL : unshare syscall smoke test failed: > errno=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument > Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns tests. > ... > ---------------- > > The source which returned with "Invalid argument" is > "check_netns_enabled.c": > > ---<check_netns_enabled.c>------------- > main() > { > /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. > */ > if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { > tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test > failed"); > } > tst_exit(); > } > ---------------- > > In RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, unshare() does not support the argument > "CLONE_NEWNET". > But I feel strange that log results is "PASS" in spite of "TFAIL" exit. > > "container_test.sh" which calls "check_netns_enabled.c" is as follows: > ---<container_test.sh>------------- > ... > check_netns_enabled > if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then > echo "Running netns tests." > runnetnstest.sh > else > echo "Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns > tests." > fi > ... > ---------------- > > According to above source, "check_netns_enabled.c" is only the judgement > whether "runnetnstest.sh" test can be called or not. > So, I think that "TFAIL" is not suitable for the test impossibility > message. > "TCONF" is more suitable for the message than "TFAIL", I think. > But, if "TCONF" is used instead of "TFAIL", "tst_exit" returns with 0. > And the test shell "runnetnstest.sh" is called against intention. > > > I thought up two ways of solutions. > (1) Insert "exit(1)" just after "tst_resm()" of "check_netns_enabled.c" > (2) Replace "TFAIL" with "TWARN", instead of "TCONF". > > But above solutions are both irregular measures, I think. > > If there are other good measures, please give me advice. > > > In the following, I nominate a temporary patch for an example: > > Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> > > ===(1)========= > --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12 > 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 > +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16 > 11:58:14.000000000 +0900 > @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ > { > /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. > */ > if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { > - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test > failed"); > + tst_resm (TCONF | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test > failed"); > + exit (1); > } > tst_exit(); > } > ============ > > ===(2)========= > --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12 > 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 > +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16 > 11:56:47.000000000 +0900 > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ > { > /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. > */ > if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { > - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test > failed"); > + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test > failed"); > } > tst_exit(); > } > ============ Uh, that would introduce a more serious problem because the netns tests are keyed on whether or not that script passes or fails. If you can provide a more stable means of detecting whether or not CLONE_* is available with netns, and integrate that into the tests, that would be a better idea. Thanks, -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper @ 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper 2010-08-02 4:36 ` Mitani 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Garrett Cooper @ 2010-07-16 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mitani; +Cc: ltp-list On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> With RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, I noticed that "Containers" test failed but >> "Containers" is PASS in log results: >> >> ---<log results file>------------- >> ... >> hangup01 PASS 0 >> Containers PASS 0 >> BindMounts PASS 0 >> ... >> ---------------- >> >> ---<detail in redirected file>------------- >> ... >> check_netns_enabled 1 TFAIL : unshare syscall smoke test failed: >> errno=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument >> Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns tests. >> ... >> ---------------- >> >> The source which returned with "Invalid argument" is >> "check_netns_enabled.c": >> >> ---<check_netns_enabled.c>------------- >> main() >> { >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. >> */ >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { >> tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test >> failed"); >> } >> tst_exit(); >> } >> ---------------- >> >> In RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, unshare() does not support the argument >> "CLONE_NEWNET". >> But I feel strange that log results is "PASS" in spite of "TFAIL" exit. >> >> "container_test.sh" which calls "check_netns_enabled.c" is as follows: >> ---<container_test.sh>------------- >> ... >> check_netns_enabled >> if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then >> echo "Running netns tests." >> runnetnstest.sh >> else >> echo "Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns >> tests." >> fi >> ... >> ---------------- >> >> According to above source, "check_netns_enabled.c" is only the judgement >> whether "runnetnstest.sh" test can be called or not. >> So, I think that "TFAIL" is not suitable for the test impossibility >> message. >> "TCONF" is more suitable for the message than "TFAIL", I think. >> But, if "TCONF" is used instead of "TFAIL", "tst_exit" returns with 0. >> And the test shell "runnetnstest.sh" is called against intention. >> >> >> I thought up two ways of solutions. >> (1) Insert "exit(1)" just after "tst_resm()" of "check_netns_enabled.c" >> (2) Replace "TFAIL" with "TWARN", instead of "TCONF". >> >> But above solutions are both irregular measures, I think. >> >> If there are other good measures, please give me advice. >> >> >> In the following, I nominate a temporary patch for an example: >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> >> >> ===(1)========= >> --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12 >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16 >> 11:58:14.000000000 +0900 >> @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ >> { >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. >> */ >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test >> failed"); >> + tst_resm (TCONF | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test >> failed"); >> + exit (1); >> } >> tst_exit(); >> } >> ============ >> >> ===(2)========= >> --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-12 >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-16 >> 11:56:47.000000000 +0900 >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ >> { >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. >> */ >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test >> failed"); >> + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test >> failed"); >> } >> tst_exit(); >> } >> ============ > > Uh, that would introduce a more serious problem because the netns > tests are keyed on whether or not that script passes or fails. s/script/app/ > If you can provide a more stable means of detecting whether or not > CLONE_* is available with netns, and integrate that into the tests, > that would be a better idea. Thanks, -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper @ 2010-08-02 4:36 ` Mitani 2010-08-02 6:31 ` Garrett Cooper 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mitani @ 2010-08-02 4:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Garrett Cooper'; +Cc: ltp-list, 當座 健市 [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6214 bytes --] > -----Original Message----- > From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:51 AM > To: Mitani > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" > is in log results > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> With RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, I noticed that "Containers" test failed > but > >> "Containers" is PASS in log results: > >> > >> ---<log results file>------------- > >> ... > >> hangup01 PASS 0 > >> Containers PASS 0 > >> BindMounts PASS 0 > >> ... > >> ---------------- > >> > >> ---<detail in redirected file>------------- > >> ... > >> check_netns_enabled 1 TFAIL : unshare syscall smoke test > failed: > >> errno=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument > >> Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns tests. > >> ... > >> ---------------- > >> > >> The source which returned with "Invalid argument" is > >> "check_netns_enabled.c": > >> > >> ---<check_netns_enabled.c>------------- > >> main() > >> { > >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns > capabilities. > >> */ > >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) > { > >> tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke > test > >> failed"); > >> } > >> tst_exit(); > >> } > >> ---------------- > >> > >> In RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, unshare() does not support the argument > >> "CLONE_NEWNET". > >> But I feel strange that log results is "PASS" in spite of "TFAIL" > exit. > >> > >> "container_test.sh" which calls "check_netns_enabled.c" is as > follows: > >> ---<container_test.sh>------------- > >> ... > >> check_netns_enabled > >> if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then > >> echo "Running netns tests." > >> runnetnstest.sh > >> else > >> echo "Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not > running netns > >> tests." > >> fi > >> ... > >> ---------------- > >> > >> According to above source, "check_netns_enabled.c" is only the > judgement > >> whether "runnetnstest.sh" test can be called or not. > >> So, I think that "TFAIL" is not suitable for the test impossibility > >> message. > >> "TCONF" is more suitable for the message than "TFAIL", I think. > >> But, if "TCONF" is used instead of "TFAIL", "tst_exit" returns with > 0. > >> And the test shell "runnetnstest.sh" is called against intention. > >> > >> > >> I thought up two ways of solutions. > >> (1) Insert "exit(1)" just after "tst_resm()" of > "check_netns_enabled.c" > >> (2) Replace "TFAIL" with "TWARN", instead of "TCONF". > >> > >> But above solutions are both irregular measures, I think. > >> > >> If there are other good measures, please give me advice. > >> > >> > >> In the following, I nominate a temporary patch for an example: > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> > >> > >> ===(1)========= > >> --- > a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- > 07-12 > >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 > >> +++ > b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- > 07-16 > >> 11:58:14.000000000 +0900 > >> @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ > >> { > >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns > capabilities. > >> */ > >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < > 0) { > >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke > test > >> failed"); > >> + tst_resm (TCONF | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke > test > >> failed"); > >> + exit (1); > >> } > >> tst_exit(); > >> } > >> ============ > >> > >> ===(2)========= > >> --- > a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- > 07-12 > >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 > >> +++ > b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- > 07-16 > >> 11:56:47.000000000 +0900 > >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ > >> { > >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns > capabilities. > >> */ > >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < > 0) { > >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke > test > >> failed"); > >> + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke > test > >> failed"); > >> } > >> tst_exit(); > >> } > >> ============ > > > > Uh, that would introduce a more serious problem because the netns > > tests are keyed on whether or not that script passes or fails. > > s/script/app/ > > > If you can provide a more stable means of detecting whether or not > > CLONE_* is available with netns, and integrate that into the tests, > > that would be a better idea. > > Thanks, > -Garrett Sorry for my late answer. I considered how to judge detecting whether or not CLONE_* is available. However, I hit only about errno judgment. Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> ============ --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-30 02:23:32.000000000 +0900 +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-08-02 10:38:31.000000000 +0900 @@ -42,8 +42,12 @@ main() { /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. */ - if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); + if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { + if (errno == EINVAL) { + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall not support CLONE_NEWNET or CLONE_NEWNS"); + } else { + tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); + } } tst_exit(); } ============ Thanks-- -Tomonori Mitani [-- Attachment #2: check_netns_enabled.patch --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 738 bytes --] --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-30 02:23:32.000000000 +0900 +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-08-02 10:38:31.000000000 +0900 @@ -42,8 +42,12 @@ main() { /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. */ - if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); + if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { + if (errno == EINVAL) { + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall not support CLONE_NEWNET or CLONE_NEWNS"); + } else { + tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); + } } tst_exit(); } [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 311 bytes --] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the Plug-In Development Kit to bring their C/C++ apps to Palm for a share of $1 Million in cash or HP Products. Visit us here for more details: http://p.sf.net/sfu/dev2dev-palm [-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results 2010-08-02 4:36 ` Mitani @ 2010-08-02 6:31 ` Garrett Cooper 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Garrett Cooper @ 2010-08-02 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mitani; +Cc: ltp-list, 當座 健市 On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:51 AM >> To: Mitani >> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" >> is in log results >> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> With RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, I noticed that "Containers" test failed >> but >> >> "Containers" is PASS in log results: >> >> >> >> ---<log results file>------------- >> >> ... >> >> hangup01 PASS 0 >> >> Containers PASS 0 >> >> BindMounts PASS 0 >> >> ... >> >> ---------------- >> >> >> >> ---<detail in redirected file>------------- >> >> ... >> >> check_netns_enabled 1 TFAIL : unshare syscall smoke test >> failed: >> >> errno=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument >> >> Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not running netns tests. >> >> ... >> >> ---------------- >> >> >> >> The source which returned with "Invalid argument" is >> >> "check_netns_enabled.c": >> >> >> >> ---<check_netns_enabled.c>------------- >> >> main() >> >> { >> >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns >> capabilities. >> >> */ >> >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) >> { >> >> tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke >> test >> >> failed"); >> >> } >> >> tst_exit(); >> >> } >> >> ---------------- >> >> >> >> In RHEL5.4/5.5 systems, unshare() does not support the argument >> >> "CLONE_NEWNET". >> >> But I feel strange that log results is "PASS" in spite of "TFAIL" >> exit. >> >> >> >> "container_test.sh" which calls "check_netns_enabled.c" is as >> follows: >> >> ---<container_test.sh>------------- >> >> ... >> >> check_netns_enabled >> >> if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then >> >> echo "Running netns tests." >> >> runnetnstest.sh >> >> else >> >> echo "Network namespaces not enabled in kernel. Not >> running netns >> >> tests." >> >> fi >> >> ... >> >> ---------------- >> >> >> >> According to above source, "check_netns_enabled.c" is only the >> judgement >> >> whether "runnetnstest.sh" test can be called or not. >> >> So, I think that "TFAIL" is not suitable for the test impossibility >> >> message. >> >> "TCONF" is more suitable for the message than "TFAIL", I think. >> >> But, if "TCONF" is used instead of "TFAIL", "tst_exit" returns with >> 0. >> >> And the test shell "runnetnstest.sh" is called against intention. >> >> >> >> >> >> I thought up two ways of solutions. >> >> (1) Insert "exit(1)" just after "tst_resm()" of >> "check_netns_enabled.c" >> >> (2) Replace "TFAIL" with "TWARN", instead of "TCONF". >> >> >> >> But above solutions are both irregular measures, I think. >> >> >> >> If there are other good measures, please give me advice. >> >> >> >> >> >> In the following, I nominate a temporary patch for an example: >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> >> >> >> >> ===(1)========= >> >> --- >> a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- >> 07-12 >> >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 >> >> +++ >> b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- >> 07-16 >> >> 11:58:14.000000000 +0900 >> >> @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ >> >> { >> >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns >> capabilities. >> >> */ >> >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < >> 0) { >> >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke >> test >> >> failed"); >> >> + tst_resm (TCONF | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke >> test >> >> failed"); >> >> + exit (1); >> >> } >> >> tst_exit(); >> >> } >> >> ============ >> >> >> >> ===(2)========= >> >> --- >> a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- >> 07-12 >> >> 02:01:45.000000000 +0900 >> >> +++ >> b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010- >> 07-16 >> >> 11:56:47.000000000 +0900 >> >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ >> >> { >> >> /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns >> capabilities. >> >> */ >> >> if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < >> 0) { >> >> - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke >> test >> >> failed"); >> >> + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke >> test >> >> failed"); >> >> } >> >> tst_exit(); >> >> } >> >> ============ >> > >> > Uh, that would introduce a more serious problem because the netns >> > tests are keyed on whether or not that script passes or fails. >> >> s/script/app/ >> >> > If you can provide a more stable means of detecting whether or not >> > CLONE_* is available with netns, and integrate that into the tests, >> > that would be a better idea. >> >> Thanks, >> -Garrett > > > Sorry for my late answer. > > I considered how to judge detecting whether or not CLONE_* is available. > However, I hit only about errno judgment. > > Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> > > ============ > --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-07-30 02:23:32.000000000 +0900 > +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/check_netns_enabled.c 2010-08-02 10:38:31.000000000 +0900 > @@ -42,8 +42,12 @@ > main() > { > /* Checking if the kernel supports unshare with netns capabilities. */ > - if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { > - tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); > + if (syscall(__NR_unshare, CLONE_NEWNET | CLONE_NEWNS) < 0) { > + if (errno == EINVAL) { > + tst_resm (TWARN | TERRNO, "unshare syscall not support CLONE_NEWNET or CLONE_NEWNS"); > + } else { > + tst_resm (TFAIL | TERRNO, "unshare syscall smoke test failed"); > + } > } > tst_exit(); > } There are only 3 errors allowed for unshare(2), according to the manpage: EPERM flags specified CLONE_NEWNS but the calling process was not privileged (did not have the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability). ENOMEM Cannot allocate sufficient memory to copy parts of caller's context that need to be unshared. EINVAL An invalid bit was specified in flags. Given that TWARN will show up as an error, I suppose this is ok.. but it seems silly to single out only that case. Committed anyhow :P. -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the Plug-In Development Kit to bring their C/C++ apps to Palm for a share of $1 Million in cash or HP Products. Visit us here for more details: http://p.sf.net/sfu/dev2dev-palm _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-02 6:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-07-16 4:19 [LTP] ”Ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｅｒｓ” test was "TFAIL" but "PASS" is in log results Mitani 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper 2010-07-16 22:50 ` Garrett Cooper 2010-08-02 4:36 ` Mitani 2010-08-02 6:31 ` Garrett Cooper
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox