From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OhAHd-0004Mc-B5 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:55:33 +0000 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1OhAHZ-0006OK-LR for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:55:31 +0000 Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o75NcJRK032171 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:38:19 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o75NtNsI136174 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:55:23 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o75NtNut011321 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:55:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:00:59 -0700 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Message-ID: <20100806000058.GA15483@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [LTP] : drop test pidns03 ? List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: subrata@vnet.linux.ibm.com Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net I am not sure about the original intent of pidns03 test case but I think the test is expected to fail :-( The header for this test says: * Verify that: * 1. When parent, clone a process with flag CLONE_NEWPID, see the * process id of the parent is existing after mounting /proc The test passes in the parent-pid from init-pid-ns and looks for that pid in the child's mount of /proc. But for the CLONE_NEWPID child, parent process should appear to have a pid == 0. The pid of the parent in the initial pid namespace must NOT be visible to the child - in fact a different process can have that pid. I am not surprised the test fails - I am curious to know the version of the kernel when this test reliably passed - if at all. I tried this on 2.6.29 and 2.6.34-rc5 and it fails reliably. I dug through my history and see that this test was part of a 6-patch set, We did have some comments on the coding style on the set, but we seem to have missed the intent of this test :-(. Do we have any other history of this test ? If not, I think we should either drop the test or modify the test to verify the opposite (i.e. verify that the opendir() in the test fails with ENOENT). Sukadev ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list