[LTP] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for .max_kver

[LTP] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for .max_kver

[Petr Vorel]

Petr Vorel (5):
  lib: Rename function check_kver() => check_min_kver()
  lib: Add support for max_kver to struct tst_test and tst_fs
  execve04: Use .max_kver
  creat07: Use .max_kver
  fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

 include/tst_test.h                            |  9 +++-
 lib/tst_test.c                                | 49 +++++++++++++++++--
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c     | 14 ++----
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c   | 14 ++----
 .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c     |  4 ++
 5 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

-- 
2.55.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH 1/5] lib: Rename function check_kver() => check_min_kver()

[Petr Vorel]

Preparation for a next commit.

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
NOTE: It can be squeezed into next commit if you find the separation useless.

 lib/tst_test.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
index 5c3607016e..778a1fed40 100644
--- a/lib/tst_test.c
+++ b/lib/tst_test.c
@@ -1058,11 +1058,11 @@ static void do_exit(int ret)
 }
 
 /*
- * Check for the required kernel version.
+ * Check for the minimal required kernel version.
  *
  * return: true if the kernel version is high enough, false otherwise.
  */
-static bool check_kver(const char *min_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
+static bool check_min_kver(const char *min_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
 {
 	char *msg;
 	int v1, v2, v3;
@@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
 		tst_brk(TCONF, "Test needs to be run as root");
 
 	if (tst_test->min_kver)
-		check_kver(tst_test->min_kver, 1);
+		check_min_kver(tst_test->min_kver, 1);
 
 	if (tst_test->skip_in_lockdown && tst_lockdown_enabled() > 0)
 		tst_brk(TCONF, "Kernel is locked down, skipping test");
@@ -1584,7 +1584,7 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
 				tst_check_cmd(tst_test->filesystems->mkfs_ver, 1);
 
 			if (tst_test->filesystems && tst_test->filesystems->min_kver)
-				check_kver(tst_test->filesystems->min_kver, 1);
+				check_min_kver(tst_test->filesystems->min_kver, 1);
 
 			prepare_device(tst_test->filesystems);
 		}
@@ -1988,7 +1988,7 @@ static void run_tcase_on_fs(struct tst_fs *fs, const char *fs_type)
 	if (fs->mkfs_ver && !tst_check_cmd(fs->mkfs_ver, 0))
 		return;
 
-	if (fs->min_kver && !check_kver(fs->min_kver, 0))
+	if (fs->min_kver && !check_min_kver(fs->min_kver, 0))
 		return;
 
 	prepare_device(fs);
-- 
2.55.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH 2/5] lib: Add support for max_kver to struct tst_test and tst_fs

[Petr Vorel]

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
 include/tst_test.h |  9 ++++++++-
 lib/tst_test.c     | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/tst_test.h b/include/tst_test.h
index c69362485e..0910660827 100644
--- a/include/tst_test.h
+++ b/include/tst_test.h
@@ -280,6 +280,9 @@ struct tst_ulimit_val {
  *
  * @min_kver: A minimum kernel version supporting the filesystem which has been
  *            created with mkfs.
+ *
+ * @max_kver: A maximum kernel version supporting the filesystem which has been
+ *            created with mkfs.
  */
 struct tst_fs {
 	const char *type;
@@ -292,6 +295,7 @@ struct tst_fs {
 	const void *mnt_data;
 
 	const char *min_kver;
+	const char *max_kver;
 };
 
 /**
@@ -301,7 +305,9 @@ struct tst_fs {
  *        and each time passed an increasing counter value.
  * @options: An NULL optstr terminated array of struct tst_option.
  *
- * @min_kver: A minimal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "3.10".
+ * @min_kver: A minimal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "4.4".
+ *
+ * @max_kver: A maximal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "7.2".
  *
  * @supported_archs: A NULL terminated array of architectures the test runs on
  *                   e.g. {"x86_64, "x86", NULL}. Calls tst_is_on_arch() to
@@ -551,6 +557,7 @@ struct tst_fs {
 	struct tst_option *options;
 
 	const char *min_kver;
+	const char *max_kver;
 
 	const char *const *supported_archs;
 
diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
index 778a1fed40..fa38b3a7a3 100644
--- a/lib/tst_test.c
+++ b/lib/tst_test.c
@@ -1087,6 +1087,36 @@ static bool check_min_kver(const char *min_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
 	return true;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Check for the maximal required kernel version.
+ *
+ * return: true if the kernel version is low enough, false otherwise.
+ */
+static bool check_max_kver(const char *max_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
+{
+	char *msg;
+	int v1, v2, v3;
+
+	if (tst_parse_kver(max_kver, &v1, &v2, &v3)) {
+		tst_res(TWARN,
+			"Invalid kernel version %s, expected %%d.%%d.%%d",
+			max_kver);
+	}
+
+	if (tst_kvercmp(v1, v2, v3) > 0) {
+		msg = "The test requires kernel %s or older";
+
+		if (brk_nosupp)
+			tst_brk(TCONF, msg, max_kver);
+		else
+			tst_res(TCONF, msg, max_kver);
+
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /*
  * Checks if the struct results values are equal.
  *
@@ -1463,6 +1493,9 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
 	if (tst_test->min_kver)
 		check_min_kver(tst_test->min_kver, 1);
 
+	if (tst_test->max_kver)
+		check_max_kver(tst_test->max_kver, 1);
+
 	if (tst_test->skip_in_lockdown && tst_lockdown_enabled() > 0)
 		tst_brk(TCONF, "Kernel is locked down, skipping test");
 
@@ -1586,6 +1619,9 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
 			if (tst_test->filesystems && tst_test->filesystems->min_kver)
 				check_min_kver(tst_test->filesystems->min_kver, 1);
 
+			if (tst_test->filesystems && tst_test->filesystems->max_kver)
+				check_max_kver(tst_test->filesystems->max_kver, 1);
+
 			prepare_device(tst_test->filesystems);
 		}
 	}
@@ -1991,6 +2027,9 @@ static void run_tcase_on_fs(struct tst_fs *fs, const char *fs_type)
 	if (fs->min_kver && !check_min_kver(fs->min_kver, 0))
 		return;
 
+	if (fs->max_kver && !check_max_kver(fs->max_kver, 0))
+		return;
+
 	prepare_device(fs);
 
 	fork_testrun();
-- 
2.55.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH 3/5] execve04: Use .max_kver

[Petr Vorel]

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c | 14 ++++----------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c
index 35ec882a07..75f1131937 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve04.c
@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
 /*\
  * Attempt to :manpage:`execve(2)` a file which is being opened by another process for
  * writing fails with ETXTBSY.
+ *
+ * NOTE: write to executed file is allowed since 6.11-rc1:
+ * 2a010c412853 ("fs: don't block i_writecount during exec")
  */
 
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
@@ -62,19 +65,10 @@ static void do_child(void)
 	exit(0);
 }
 
-static void setup(void)
-{
-	if ((tst_kvercmp(6, 11, 0)) >= 0) {
-		tst_brk(TCONF, "Skipping test, write to executed file is "
-			"allowed since 6.11-rc1.\n"
-			"2a010c412853 (\"fs: don't block i_writecount during exec\")");
-	}
-}
-
 static struct tst_test test = {
-	.setup = setup,
 	.test_all = verify_execve,
 	.forks_child = 1,
+	.max_kver = "6.11",
 	.child_needs_reinit = 1,
 	.needs_checkpoints = 1,
 	.resource_files = (const char *const []) {
-- 
2.55.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH 4/5] creat07: Use .max_kver

[Petr Vorel]

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c | 14 ++++----------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c
index c7b85ee694..07f7bb10db 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/creat/creat07.c
@@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
 
 /*\
  * Check that :manpage:`creat(2)` sets ETXTBSY correctly.
+ *
+ * NOTE: write to executed file is allowed since 6.11-rc1:
+ * 2a010c412853 ("fs: don't block i_writecount during exec")
  */
 
 #include <sys/types.h>
@@ -47,19 +50,10 @@ static void verify_creat(void)
 	SAFE_WAITPID(pid, NULL, 0);
 }
 
-static void setup(void)
-{
-	if ((tst_kvercmp(6, 11, 0)) >= 0) {
-		tst_brk(TCONF, "Skipping test, write to executed file is "
-			"allowed since 6.11-rc1.\n"
-			"2a010c412853 (\"fs: don't block i_writecount during exec\")");
-	}
-}
-
 static struct tst_test test = {
-	.setup = setup,
 	.test_all = verify_creat,
 	.needs_checkpoints = 1,
+	.max_kver = "6.11",
 	.forks_child = 1,
 	.resource_files = (const char *const []) {
 		TEST_APP,
-- 
2.55.0


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

[LTP] [PATCH 5/5] fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

[Petr Vorel]

fanotify_init() used to reject FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with
FAN_REPORT_TID with EINVAL. Since Linux v7.2, fanotify supports
reporting pidfds for thread IDs, so this combination is expected to
succeed.

The test that these flag combinations are allowed:
                FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
		FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID |
			   FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),

Because the above flag combinations are already "tested" by the tests
that use them and we don't have any tests that >= 5.10 has support for
FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM etc just simply skip the test on v7.2.

Reported-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
Replacement of:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20260616210448.12175-2-anonymemeow@gmail.com/
based on
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/CAOQ4uxhnrH3=XsCBhuO3oYtS=pZcRjkAchtrVwtnfJzBVmpNfQ@mail.gmail.com/

 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
index b32ecf6aa3..dfcf194755 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
@@ -15,6 +15,9 @@
  *
  * NOTE: FAN_REPORT_PIDFD support was added in v5.15-rc1 in
  * af579beb666a ("fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API").
+ *
+ * NOTE: since v7.2, fanotify supports reporting pidfds for thread IDs => skip
+ * the test.
  */
 
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
@@ -75,6 +78,7 @@ static void do_cleanup(void)
 
 static struct tst_test test = {
 	.setup = do_setup,
+	.max_kver = "7.2",
 	.test = do_test,
 	.tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(test_cases),
 	.cleanup = do_cleanup,
-- 
2.55.0


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 5/5] fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 29-07-26 11:17:17, Petr Vorel wrote:
> fanotify_init() used to reject FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with
> FAN_REPORT_TID with EINVAL. Since Linux v7.2, fanotify supports
> reporting pidfds for thread IDs, so this combination is expected to
> succeed.
> 
> The test that these flag combinations are allowed:
>                 FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
> 		FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID |
> 			   FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),
> 
> Because the above flag combinations are already "tested" by the tests
> that use them and we don't have any tests that >= 5.10 has support for
> FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM etc just simply skip the test on v7.2.
> 
> Reported-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

I agree with the intention. I just think that if the option is called
max_kver, then this suggest this is the last version where the test should
be run. Not the first version where the test shouldn't be run. So the name
is a bit confusing to me.

								Honza

> ---
> Replacement of:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20260616210448.12175-2-anonymemeow@gmail.com/
> based on
> https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/CAOQ4uxhnrH3=XsCBhuO3oYtS=pZcRjkAchtrVwtnfJzBVmpNfQ@mail.gmail.com/
> 
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> index b32ecf6aa3..dfcf194755 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@
>   *
>   * NOTE: FAN_REPORT_PIDFD support was added in v5.15-rc1 in
>   * af579beb666a ("fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API").
> + *
> + * NOTE: since v7.2, fanotify supports reporting pidfds for thread IDs => skip
> + * the test.
>   */
>  
>  #define _GNU_SOURCE
> @@ -75,6 +78,7 @@ static void do_cleanup(void)
>  
>  static struct tst_test test = {
>  	.setup = do_setup,
> +	.max_kver = "7.2",
>  	.test = do_test,
>  	.tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(test_cases),
>  	.cleanup = do_cleanup,
> -- 
> 2.55.0
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 5/5] fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

[Petr Vorel]

> On Wed 29-07-26 11:17:17, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > fanotify_init() used to reject FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with
> > FAN_REPORT_TID with EINVAL. Since Linux v7.2, fanotify supports
> > reporting pidfds for thread IDs, so this combination is expected to
> > succeed.

> > The test that these flag combinations are allowed:
> >                 FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
> > 		FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID |
> > 			   FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),

> > Because the above flag combinations are already "tested" by the tests
> > that use them and we don't have any tests that >= 5.10 has support for
> > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM etc just simply skip the test on v7.2.

> > Reported-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> > Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

> I agree with the intention. I just think that if the option is called
> max_kver, then this suggest this is the last version where the test should
> be run. Not the first version where the test shouldn't be run. So the name
> is a bit confusing to me.

Good catch ...

> 								Honza

...
> >  static struct tst_test test = {
> >  	.setup = do_setup,
> > +	.max_kver = "7.2",

... it was supposed to be:
.max_kver = "7.1"

FYI .max_kver is a new implementation (part of the patchset, I just did not want
to bother you with LTP internals, that's why you're Cc only on fanotify20.c
patch) and works exactly as you suggested (run on kernel <= 7.1, skip on >= 7.2).

If there is no other objection with with the patchset, I'll fix this before
merge.

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 5/5] fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 29-07-26 11:51:42, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > On Wed 29-07-26 11:17:17, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > fanotify_init() used to reject FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with
> > > FAN_REPORT_TID with EINVAL. Since Linux v7.2, fanotify supports
> > > reporting pidfds for thread IDs, so this combination is expected to
> > > succeed.
> 
> > > The test that these flag combinations are allowed:
> > >                 FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
> > > 		FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID |
> > > 			   FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),
> 
> > > Because the above flag combinations are already "tested" by the tests
> > > that use them and we don't have any tests that >= 5.10 has support for
> > > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM etc just simply skip the test on v7.2.
> 
> > > Reported-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> 
> > I agree with the intention. I just think that if the option is called
> > max_kver, then this suggest this is the last version where the test should
> > be run. Not the first version where the test shouldn't be run. So the name
> > is a bit confusing to me.
> 
> Good catch ...
> 
> > 								Honza
> 
> ...
> > >  static struct tst_test test = {
> > >  	.setup = do_setup,
> > > +	.max_kver = "7.2",
> 
> ... it was supposed to be:
> .max_kver = "7.1"
> 
> FYI .max_kver is a new implementation (part of the patchset, I just did not want
> to bother you with LTP internals, that's why you're Cc only on fanotify20.c
> patch) and works exactly as you suggested (run on kernel <= 7.1, skip on >= 7.2).

OK :)

> If there is no other objection with with the patchset, I'll fix this before
> merge.

Thanks! In that case feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

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