From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:59 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] ptrace/ptrace05: preventing kill other processes if fork failed In-Reply-To: <20160412030734.GA11627@localhost.localdomain> References: <20160412030734.GA11627@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20160412100858.GC24915@rei.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > If fork failed, we should try next signum. Or the kill(-1, 9) on line > 196 will kill a lot of processes. > > Signed-off-by: Han Pingtian > --- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/ptrace/ptrace05.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ptrace/ptrace05.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ptrace/ptrace05.c > index d610cc0..e717319 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ptrace/ptrace05.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ptrace/ptrace05.c > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > switch (child = fork()) { > case -1: > tst_resm(TBROK | TERRNO, "Failed to fork properly."); > - break; > + continue; I would just change this to tst_brkm(). There is no point in continuing the test if fork() starts failing. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz