From: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] syscalls/ipc: semctl09: add a test for SEM_STAT_ANY
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:57:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5FE30676.8060004@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1608626908-8117-3-git-send-email-zhufy.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hi Feiyu
> +#include<stdio.h>
> +#include<pwd.h>
> +#include<sys/sem.h>
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
> +#include "libnewipc.h"
> +#include "lapi/semun.h"
> +#include "lapi/sem.h"
I doubt do we really need two lapi headers, maybe we can remove semun.h
and remove union struct definition into lapi/sem.h.
> +#include "lapi/syscalls.h"
> +
> +static int sem_id = -1;
> +static uid_t nobody_uid, root_uid;
> +static union semun un;
> +
> +static inline int tst_sys_semctl(int semid, int semnum, int cmd)
> +{
> + return tst_syscall(__NR_semctl, semid, semnum, cmd,&un.buf);
It looks like semctl man-pages has wrong description. We should use
sem_ds struct instead of seminfo struct. I have sent a patch[1] to
man-pages community.
[1]https://github.com/linux-mailinglist-archives/linux-man.vger.kernel.org.0/commit/f2bda64c45a38ba7c895716908321f34ddd25cdc
> +}
> +
> +static inline int tst_semctl(int semid, int semnum, int cmd)
> +{
> + return semctl(semid, semnum, cmd,&un.buf);
> +}
> +
Since we test glibc and syscall, I think we should use test_variants
like semop case.
> +static struct tcases {
> + uid_t *uid;
> + int (*test_semctl) ();
> + char *desc;
> +} tests[] = {
> + {&nobody_uid, tst_sys_semctl, "with nobody user by syscall()",},
> + {&nobody_uid, tst_semctl, "with nobody user",},
> + {&root_uid, tst_sys_semctl, "with root user by syscall()",},
> + {&root_uid, tst_semctl, "with root user",}
> +};
> +
> +static void parse_proc_sysvipc(struct seminfo *info)
> +{
> + FILE *f = fopen("/proc/sysvipc/sem", "r");
> + int semset_cnt = 0;
> + int sem_cnt = 0;
> +
> + /* Eat header */
> + for (;;) {
> + int c = fgetc(f);
> +
> + if (c == '\n' || c == EOF)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + int nsems;
> + /*
> + * Sum sem set, nsems for all elements listed, which should equal
> + * the data returned in the seminfo structure.
> + */
> + while (fscanf(f, "%*i %*i %*i %i %*i %*i %*i %*i %*i %*i",
> + &nsems)> 0){
> + semset_cnt++;
> + sem_cnt += nsems;
> + }
> +
> + if (info->semusz != semset_cnt) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "semusz = %i, expected %i",
> + info->semusz, semset_cnt);
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TPASS, "semset_cnt = %i", semset_cnt);
> + }
> +
> + if (info->semaem != sem_cnt) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "semaem = %i, expected %i",
> + info->semaem, sem_cnt);
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TPASS, "sen_cnt = %i", sem_cnt);
> + }
> +
> + fclose(f);
> +}
> +
> +static void verify_semctl(unsigned int n)
> +{
> + struct tcases *tc =&tests[n];
> + int i, semid, cnt = 0;
> + struct seminfo info;
> + union semun arg;
> +
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Test SEM_STAT_ANY %s", tc->desc);
> +
> + SAFE_SETEUID(*tc->uid);
> +
> + arg.__buf =&info;
> +
> + TEST(semctl(sem_id, 0, SEM_INFO, arg));
> +
> + if (TST_RET == -1) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "semctl(sem_id, 0, SEM_INFO, ...)");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + semid = (*tc->test_semctl) (TST_RET, 0, SEM_STAT_ANY);
> +
> + if (errno == EFAULT) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "SEM_STAT_ANY doesn't pass the buffer "
> + "specified by the caller to kernel");
> + return;
> + } else if (semid == -1) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "SEM_INFO haven't returned a valid index");
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TPASS, "SEM_INFO returned valid index %li to semid %i",
> + TST_RET, semid);
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i<= TST_RET; i++) {
> + if (((*tc->test_semctl) (i, 0, SEM_STAT_ANY)) != -1)
> + cnt++;
> + }
> +
> + if (cnt == info.semusz) {
> + tst_res(TPASS, "Counted used = %i", cnt);
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "Counted used = %i, semuse = %i",
> + cnt, info.semusz);
> + }
> +
> + parse_proc_sysvipc(&info);
> +}
> +
> +static void setup(void)
> +{
> + struct passwd *ltpuser = SAFE_GETPWNAM("nobody");
> + nobody_uid = ltpuser->pw_uid;
> + root_uid = 0;
> +
> + sem_id = SAFE_SEMGET(IPC_PRIVATE, 2, IPC_CREAT | 0600);
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> + if (sem_id>= 0)
> + SAFE_SEMCTL(sem_id, 0, IPC_RMID);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + .setup = setup,
> + .cleanup = cleanup,
> + .test = verify_semctl,
> + .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(tests),
> + .needs_root = 1,
> +};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-23 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-22 8:48 [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] Add SAFE_SEMCTL() and SAFE_SEMGET() macro Feiyu Zhu
2020-12-22 8:48 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] lapi/sem.h: Add SEM_STAT_ANY Feiyu Zhu
2020-12-23 8:29 ` Yang Xu
2020-12-22 8:48 ` [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] syscalls/ipc: semctl09: add a test for SEM_STAT_ANY Feiyu Zhu
2020-12-23 8:57 ` Yang Xu [this message]
2020-12-23 8:20 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] Add SAFE_SEMCTL() and SAFE_SEMGET() macro Yang Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5FE30676.8060004@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox