From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xiao Yang Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:07:09 +0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] syscalls/shmat03.c: add new regression test In-Reply-To: <1869831182.41262364.1498132936147.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <1492164917-9329-1-git-send-email-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1492164917-9329-3-git-send-email-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170529145709.GC6618@rei.lan> <59300056.1020107@cn.fujitsu.com> <594B9768.8090108@cn.fujitsu.com> <594BA513.5010705@cn.fujitsu.com> <1869831182.41262364.1498132936147.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <594C69BD.2090703@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 2017/06/22 20:02, Jan Stancek wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Xiao Yang" >> To: "Cyril Hrubis", "Jan Stancek" >> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it >> Sent: Thursday, 22 June, 2017 1:08:03 PM >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] syscalls/shmat03.c: add new regression test >> >> On 2017/06/22 18:09, Xiao Yang wrote: >>> On 2017/06/01 19:53, Xiao Yang wrote: >>>> On 2017/05/29 22:57, Cyril Hrubis wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>>> + addr = shmat(shm_id, LOCATION, SHM_RND); >>>>>> + if (addr != (void *)-1) >>>>>> + tst_res(TINFO, "shmat() attached a nil-page unexpectedly"); >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + tst_res(TINFO, "shmat() didn't attach a nil-page"); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ((char *)addr)[0] = 'A'; >>>>> So if shmat() fails we try to write to (char*)-1 address, that does not >>>>> sound right. Why don't we exit the test with TPASS in that case and >>>>> skip >>>>> the part that tries to write to invalid address? >>>>> >>>>> Or at least dereference NULL here instead of the address returned from >>>>> shmat() since that is guaranteed to SEGFAULT. >>>> Hi Cyril >>>> >>>> I failed to call shmat() as root and returned EACCES if selinux is >>>> Enforcing. >>>> Do you know how to fix this problem? >>> Hi Cyril >>> >>> Sorry, I have fixed this issue, I will send v3 patch soon. >> Hi Cyril and jan >> >> Sorry， i tried to fix this issue， but failed. Could you help me to >> look into it? Thanks a lot! :-( >> shmat（） only attached a nil-page as root when selinux is not Enforcing. > Hi, > > as Richard mentioned already, this appears to be same test as his: > http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2017-May/004568.html > > so I guess we can drop 3/3 from your set, and use Richard's > version, which is doing what Cyril suggested. Hi Jan and Cyril Agreed. we could drop 3/3 from my patch set. Could you review my 2/3 patch, thanks a lot! :-) Thanks, Xiao Yang. > Regards, > Jan > > >