[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Li Wang via ltp]

On Fedora Rawhide (glibc 2.43+), libc exposes openat2() and struct open_how,
so our configure script defines HAVE_OPENAT2 and the fallback definition in
lapi/openat2.h gets skipped. But openat20*.c never included <fcntl.h> (and
lacked _GNU_SOURCE), so the libc-provided prototype and struct stayed hidden,
so compilation failed:

  # uname -r
  6.18.0-65.fc44.x86_64

  # rpm -qf /usr/include/fcntl.h
  glibc-devel-2.43-1.fc44.x86_64

  # nm -D /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 | grep -w openat2
  00000000000eb890 W openat2@@GLIBC_2.43

  # make -C testcase/kernel/syscalls/openat2
  openat201.c:27:62: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘struct open_how’
    27 |         {&dir_fd, TEST_FILE, O_RDWR, S_IRWXU, 0, &how, sizeof(*how)},

Define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h> in openat2 tests to make the
prototype available and fix the build.

Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c | 3 +++
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c | 3 +++
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c | 3 +++
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
index ecd63b150..40ac2f6d9 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
  *
  * Basic openat2() test.
  */
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+#include <fcntl.h>
+
 #include "tst_test.h"
 #include "lapi/openat2.h"
 
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
index 6d1b5a67c..329c6a4a5 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
  *
  * openat2() tests with various resolve flags.
  */
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+#include <fcntl.h>
+
 #include "tst_test.h"
 #include "lapi/openat2.h"
 
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
index 6ac49ef4c..cd0c00d75 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
  *
  * Basic openat2() test to check various failures.
  */
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+#include <fcntl.h>
+
 #include "tst_test.h"
 #include "lapi/openat2.h"
 
-- 
2.52.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] newlib_tests: add tst_filesystems01 to .gitignore

[Li Wang via ltp]

Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
 lib/newlib_tests/.gitignore | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/lib/newlib_tests/.gitignore b/lib/newlib_tests/.gitignore
index a4984d2ec..1586e0ad6 100644
--- a/lib/newlib_tests/.gitignore
+++ b/lib/newlib_tests/.gitignore
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ test_macros03
 test_macros04
 test_macros05
 test_macros06
+tst_filesystems01
 tst_fuzzy_sync01
 tst_fuzzy_sync02
 tst_fuzzy_sync03
-- 
2.52.0


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] newlib_tests: add tst_filesystems01 to .gitignore

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li,

obviously correct, thanks!
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] newlib_tests: add tst_filesystems01 to .gitignore

[Li Wang via ltp]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 12:57:18PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Li,
> 
> obviously correct, thanks!
> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

Patchset merged, thanks!

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Petr Vorel]

hi Li,

> On Fedora Rawhide (glibc 2.43+), libc exposes openat2() and struct open_how,
> so our configure script defines HAVE_OPENAT2 and the fallback definition in
> lapi/openat2.h gets skipped. But openat20*.c never included <fcntl.h> (and
> lacked _GNU_SOURCE), so the libc-provided prototype and struct stayed hidden,
> so compilation failed:

>   # uname -r
>   6.18.0-65.fc44.x86_64

>   # rpm -qf /usr/include/fcntl.h
>   glibc-devel-2.43-1.fc44.x86_64

>   # nm -D /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 | grep -w openat2
>   00000000000eb890 W openat2@@GLIBC_2.43

>   # make -C testcase/kernel/syscalls/openat2
>   openat201.c:27:62: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘struct open_how’
>     27 |         {&dir_fd, TEST_FILE, O_RDWR, S_IRWXU, 0, &how, sizeof(*how)},

> Define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h> in openat2 tests to make the
> prototype available and fix the build.

> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c | 3 +++
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c | 3 +++
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c | 3 +++
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> index ecd63b150..40ac2f6d9 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
>   *
>   * Basic openat2() test.
>   */
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE

Why _GNU_SOURCE? glibc test tst-openat2.c [1] which includes <fcntl.h>, uses
struct open_how and test openat2() does not define it. Neither openat2() nor
struct open_how are guarded by #ifdef __USE_GNU.

O_DIRECTORY is guarded by #ifdef __USE_XOPEN2K8 but this should be safe as we
compile with -std=gnu99.

I mean it's not a big deal, but if it works without it please remove it.

[1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-openat2.c
[2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/openat2.h

> +#include <fcntl.h>

Should not we use include lapi/fcntl.h?

> +
>  #include "tst_test.h"
>  #include "lapi/openat2.h"

lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h
there?

Kind regards,
Petr

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
> index 6d1b5a67c..329c6a4a5 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
>   *
>   * openat2() tests with various resolve flags.
>   */
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +
>  #include "tst_test.h"
>  #include "lapi/openat2.h"

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
> index 6ac49ef4c..cd0c00d75 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
>   *
>   * Basic openat2() test to check various failures.
>   */
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +
>  #include "tst_test.h"
>  #include "lapi/openat2.h"

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] newlib_tests: add tst_filesystems01 to .gitignore

[Petr Vorel]

> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 12:57:18PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Li,

> > obviously correct, thanks!
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

> Patchset merged, thanks!

Ah, I should have sent my comments for v1 first, as I meant my RBT just for this
patch, now for the first one :).

Anyway, I'll send a patch.

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Li Wang via ltp]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> hi Li,
> 
> > On Fedora Rawhide (glibc 2.43+), libc exposes openat2() and struct open_how,
> > so our configure script defines HAVE_OPENAT2 and the fallback definition in
> > lapi/openat2.h gets skipped. But openat20*.c never included <fcntl.h> (and
> > lacked _GNU_SOURCE), so the libc-provided prototype and struct stayed hidden,
> > so compilation failed:
> 
> >   # uname -r
> >   6.18.0-65.fc44.x86_64
> 
> >   # rpm -qf /usr/include/fcntl.h
> >   glibc-devel-2.43-1.fc44.x86_64
> 
> >   # nm -D /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 | grep -w openat2
> >   00000000000eb890 W openat2@@GLIBC_2.43
> 
> >   # make -C testcase/kernel/syscalls/openat2
> >   openat201.c:27:62: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘struct open_how’
> >     27 |         {&dir_fd, TEST_FILE, O_RDWR, S_IRWXU, 0, &how, sizeof(*how)},
> 
> > Define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h> in openat2 tests to make the
> > prototype available and fix the build.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c | 3 +++
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat202.c | 3 +++
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat203.c | 3 +++
> >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> > index ecd63b150..40ac2f6d9 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/openat2/openat201.c
> > @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
> >   *
> >   * Basic openat2() test.
> >   */
> > +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> 
> Why _GNU_SOURCE? glibc test tst-openat2.c [1] which includes <fcntl.h>, uses
> struct open_how and test openat2() does not define it. Neither openat2() nor
> struct open_how are guarded by #ifdef __USE_GNU.
> 
> O_DIRECTORY is guarded by #ifdef __USE_XOPEN2K8 but this should be safe as we
> compile with -std=gnu99.
> 
> I mean it's not a big deal, but if it works without it please remove it.

From my test on Fedora-Rawhide, it doesn't work if not define it.
Let me double check. Maybe reply to you tomorrow.

> 
> [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-openat2.c
> [2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/openat2.h
> 
> > +#include <fcntl.h>
> 
> Should not we use include lapi/fcntl.h?
> 
> > +
> >  #include "tst_test.h"
> >  #include "lapi/openat2.h"
> 
> lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h
> there?

From my understand lapi/* are appendix for missing stuff in header file.

Test cases should only include standard header files, and lapi should
only be used in case of missing or conflicting header files.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li,

...
> > lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h
> > there?

> From my understand lapi/* are appendix for missing stuff in header file.

Yes, but we agreed in the past, that it's better to include relevant libc/kernel
header in the lapi header [1]:

	LAPI header should always include original header.

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/doc/old/C-Test-API.asciidoc#lapi-headers

I thought we had a discussion about it, but now I see nobody acked the change in
ML (cfbc41d775), therefore I somehow pushed this approach without consensus with
others. I'm sorry for that, we can revise that. At the moment quite a few lapi
headers use this approach (likely majority).

IMHO it's better to include it than expect that all tests which use lapi header
will include relevant header *before* (otherwise tests can happily always depend
on fallback instead of using a real value from a system header).

It's a minor detail, but being consistent helps for newcomers to understand
LTP code.

And *if* we agree on it, it should be now doc/developers/ground_rules.rst.

Also there is a different approach where should be fallbacks. We use some lapi
headers (e.g. lapi/openat2.h but there are more) which don't have public
equivalent in libc (/usr/include/bits/openat2.h cannot be used directly, but via
<fcntl.h>). Therefore I would put content of lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h,
but that's a minor detail.

> Test cases should only include standard header files, and lapi should
> only be used in case of missing or conflicting header files.

But lapi/openat2.h also uses struct open_how. I would either include <fcntl.h>
in both sources or just in lapi/openat2.h. Having it only in tests looks to me
as not ideal.

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Li Wang via ltp]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 11:27:53PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Li,
> 
> ...
> > > lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h
> > > there?
> 
> > From my understand lapi/* are appendix for missing stuff in header file.
> 
> Yes, but we agreed in the past, that it's better to include relevant libc/kernel
> header in the lapi header [1]:
> 
> 	LAPI header should always include original header.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/doc/old/C-Test-API.asciidoc#lapi-headers
> 
> I thought we had a discussion about it, but now I see nobody acked the change in
> ML (cfbc41d775), therefore I somehow pushed this approach without consensus with
> others. I'm sorry for that, we can revise that. At the moment quite a few lapi
> headers use this approach (likely majority).
> 
> IMHO it's better to include it than expect that all tests which use lapi header
> will include relevant header *before* (otherwise tests can happily always depend
> on fallback instead of using a real value from a system header).

Yes, I generally agree with this, and here is my understand:

1. Testcase should include original <header.h> (but not "lapi/header.h")
   if *only* need the original <header.h> file.

2. LAPI-header should always include original <header.h>, it handling
   the missing/conflicting part there.
   Thus, we can treat "lapi/header.h" as a patched <header.h> and only
   use it intead of the original <header.h> in testcase if needed.

3. We avoid including both original <header.h> and "lapi/header.h" in
   testase at the same time.

> It's a minor detail, but being consistent helps for newcomers to understand
> LTP code.
> 
> And *if* we agree on it, it should be now doc/developers/ground_rules.rst.
> 
> Also there is a different approach where should be fallbacks. We use some lapi
> headers (e.g. lapi/openat2.h but there are more) which don't have public
> equivalent in libc (/usr/include/bits/openat2.h cannot be used directly, but via
> <fcntl.h>). Therefore I would put content of lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h,
> but that's a minor detail.

I am ok with it, the advantage merge lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h is
keep things more centralized.

But also, keep lapi/openat2.h seperated is more modular, and it should
contains <fcntl.h> as well.

> > Test cases should only include standard header files, and lapi should
> > only be used in case of missing or conflicting header files.

> But lapi/openat2.h also uses struct open_how. I would either include <fcntl.h>
> in both sources or just in lapi/openat2.h. Having it only in tests looks to me
> as not ideal.

Right, thanks for bring up this topic.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Petr Vorel]

> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 11:27:53PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Li,

> > ...
> > > > lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h
> > > > there?

> > > From my understand lapi/* are appendix for missing stuff in header file.

> > Yes, but we agreed in the past, that it's better to include relevant libc/kernel
> > header in the lapi header [1]:

> > 	LAPI header should always include original header.

> > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/doc/old/C-Test-API.asciidoc#lapi-headers

> > I thought we had a discussion about it, but now I see nobody acked the change in
> > ML (cfbc41d775), therefore I somehow pushed this approach without consensus with
> > others. I'm sorry for that, we can revise that. At the moment quite a few lapi
> > headers use this approach (likely majority).

> > IMHO it's better to include it than expect that all tests which use lapi header
> > will include relevant header *before* (otherwise tests can happily always depend
> > on fallback instead of using a real value from a system header).

> Yes, I generally agree with this, and here is my understand:

> 1. Testcase should include original <header.h> (but not "lapi/header.h")
>    if *only* need the original <header.h> file.

... and don't need any fallback from the lapi header.

> 2. LAPI-header should always include original <header.h>, it handling
>    the missing/conflicting part there.
>    Thus, we can treat "lapi/header.h" as a patched <header.h> and only
>    use it intead of the original <header.h> in testcase if needed.

+1

> 3. We avoid including both original <header.h> and "lapi/header.h" in
>    testase at the same time.

+1

> > It's a minor detail, but being consistent helps for newcomers to understand
> > LTP code.

> > And *if* we agree on it, it should be now doc/developers/ground_rules.rst.

> > Also there is a different approach where should be fallbacks. We use some lapi
> > headers (e.g. lapi/openat2.h but there are more) which don't have public
> > equivalent in libc (/usr/include/bits/openat2.h cannot be used directly, but via
> > <fcntl.h>). Therefore I would put content of lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h,
> > but that's a minor detail.

> I am ok with it, the advantage merge lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h is
> keep things more centralized.

> But also, keep lapi/openat2.h seperated is more modular, and it should
> contains <fcntl.h> as well.

Yeah, I don't have strong opinion about it, both ways would work.

> > > Test cases should only include standard header files, and lapi should
> > > only be used in case of missing or conflicting header files.

> > But lapi/openat2.h also uses struct open_how. I would either include <fcntl.h>
> > in both sources or just in lapi/openat2.h. Having it only in tests looks to me
> > as not ideal.

> Right, thanks for bring up this topic.

Thank you for your time. I try to send a patch to add the outcome to
doc/developers/ground_rules.rst and wait for ack of others to get broader
consensus about it.

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include <fcntl.h>

[Li Wang via ltp]

> Thank you for your time. I try to send a patch to add the outcome to
> doc/developers/ground_rules.rst and wait for ack of others to get broader
> consensus about it.

That's awesome.

Once we get the consensus, I think we need do a cleanup work for the whole project
to drop <foo.h> from testcase which includes "lapi/foo.h".

And also go through all LAPI headers, to garantee each "lapi/foo.h" includes
the original <foo.h>.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


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