Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] fanotify14: fix anonymous pipe testcases

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

H
> Hi!
> > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > Co-developed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > ---
> > changes v1->v2:
> > * Do not include library header in fanotify14 (not needed)

> >  .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c      | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> > index d02d81495..82725f317 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static int pipes[2] = {-1, -1};
> >  static int fanotify_fd;
> >  static int ignore_mark_unsupported;
> >  static int filesystem_mark_unsupported;
> > +static int se_enforcing;
> >  static unsigned int supported_init_flags;

> >  struct test_case_flags_t {
> > @@ -283,9 +284,18 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int number)

> >  	tst_res(TINFO, "Testing %s with %s",
> >  		tc->mark.desc, tc->mask.desc);
> > -	TST_EXP_FD_OR_FAIL(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
> > -					 tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
> > -					 tc->expected_errno);
> > +
> > +	if (tc->pfd && se_enforcing) {
> > +		const int exp_errs[] = {tc->expected_errno, EACCES};
> > +
> > +		TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
> > +				 tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
> > +				 exp_errs);
> > +	} else {
> > +		TST_EXP_FAIL(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
> > +						 tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
> > +						 tc->expected_errno);
> > +	}

> This looks like the test library is not flexible enough to make this
> simpler. Maybe having the ARRAY_SIZE() in the TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR wasn't a
> good idea after all. Or maybe we just need TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR2() that
> would take the array size explicitly, then we could do:

[ Removing Jan and Amir from the LTP specific discussion ]

@Cyril, @Li: How about add 2 macros with '_SIZE' in the name?
(TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR_SIZE and TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR_SIZE, see diff at the end).

Other option would be to add '2' (TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR2 and TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR2),
not sure what is more readable.

Kind regards,
Petr

> 	const int exp_errs[] = {tc->expected_errno, EACESS}

> 	TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR2(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
>                            tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path), exp_errs,
> 			   se_enforcing ? 1 : 2);

+++ include/tst_test_macros.h
@@ -246,6 +246,10 @@ const char *tst_errno_names(char *buf, const int *exp_errs, int exp_errs_cnt);
 		TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR_(SCALL, #SCALL, EXP_ERRS,                     \
 				  ARRAY_SIZE(EXP_ERRS), ##__VA_ARGS__);
 
+#define TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR_SIZE(SCALL, EXP_ERRS, EXP_ERRS_CNT, ...)                   \
+		TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR_(SCALL, #SCALL, EXP_ERRS,                     \
+				  EXP_ERRS_CNT, ##__VA_ARGS__);
+
 #define TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR_(SCALL, SSCALL, EXP_ERRS, EXP_ERRS_CNT, ...)         \
 	do {                                                                   \
 		TST_EXP_FAIL_SILENT_(TST_RET >= 0, SCALL, SSCALL,              \
@@ -258,6 +262,10 @@ const char *tst_errno_names(char *buf, const int *exp_errs, int exp_errs_cnt);
 		TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR_(SCALL, #SCALL, EXP_ERRS,                    \
 		                  ARRAY_SIZE(EXP_ERRS), ##__VA_ARGS__);
 
+#define TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR_SIZE(SCALL, EXP_ERRS, EXP_ERRS_CNT...)                \
+		TST_EXP_FAIL2_ARR_(SCALL, #SCALL, EXP_ERRS,                    \
+		                  EXP_ERRS_CNT, ##__VA_ARGS__);
+
 #define TST_EXP_FAIL2(SCALL, EXP_ERR, ...)                                     \
 	do {                                                                   \
 		int tst_exp_err__ = EXP_ERR;                                   \

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