Re: [LTP] [PATCH] sysctl03: sysctl returns EACCES after 2.6.33-rc1

Garrett Cooper
2010-02-22T07:44:25Z

Ok.. one last thing.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> at 2010-2-18 12:25, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 09:10:48AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Rishikesh <risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Shi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch.
>>>> Will reply you soon.
>>>>
>>>> http://marc.info/?l=ltp-list&m=126502355614857&w=2
>>>
>>> I looked at the patch finally.
>>
>> Thanks garret.
>>>
>>> Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value.
>>> There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's
>>> already done with tst_res(3).
>>
>> Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and
>> resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
>
>  Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig    2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500
> @@ -22,15 +22,18 @@
>  *     sysctl03.c
>  *
>  * DESCRIPTION
> - *     Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly.
> + *     Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES
> + *     correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1
> + *     and higher.
>  *
>  * ALGORITHM
>  *     a.      Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data
>  *             to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write
> - *             permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM.
> + *             permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES.
>  *     b.      Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data
>  *             to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write
> - *             permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM.
> + *             permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM
> + *             or EACCES.
>  *
>  * USAGE:  <for command-line>
>  *  sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]
> @@ -43,6 +46,7 @@
>  *
>  * HISTORY
>  *     07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer
> + *     02/2010 Updated by shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com
>  *
>  * RESTRICTIONS
>  *     Test must be run as root.
> @@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>  {
>        int lc;
>        char *msg;
> +       int exp_eno;
>
>        char osname[OSNAMESZ];
>        int osnamelth, status;
> @@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>
>        setup();
>
> +       if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){
> +               exp_eno = EPERM;
> +       } else {
> +               exp_eno = EACCES;
> +               exp_enos[0] = EACCES;
> +       }
> +
>        TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos);
>
>        /* check looping state if -i option is given */
> @@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>                } else {
>                        TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);
>
> -                       if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) {
> -                               tst_resm(TFAIL,
> -                                        "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s",
> -                                        EPERM, TEST_ERRNO,
> -                                        strerror(TEST_ERRNO));
> +                       if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {
> +                               tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");
>                        } else {
> -                               tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error");
> +                               tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error");
>                        }
>                }
>
> @@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>                        } else {
>                                TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);
>
> -                               if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) {
> -                                       tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got "
> -                                                "%d", TEST_ERRNO);
> +                               if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {

Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?

> +                                       tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");

Typo.

>                                } else {
> -                                       tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM "
> -                                                "error");
> +                                       tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error");
>                                }
>                        }
>
>
> Thank you.
> - Shi Weihua

It always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected
without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resm format strings to be something like the following?

tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d, ret_code =
%d", exp_errno_blah, exp_ret_code_blah);

OR:

tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,
ret_code = %d - got errno = %d, ret_code = %d", exp_errno_blah,
exp_ret_code_blah, errno_blah, ret_code_blah);

I've been debating about doing this in a macro out of include/,
but I haven't gotten there yet...

Thanks,
-Garrett