From: "xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com" <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Cc: "ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/statx01: Add stx_mnt_id check
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 03:40:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61A59D4D.8020409@fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YaSYuLV+XPW/pQ5/@yuki>
Hi Cyril
> Hi!
>> +static int file_fd = -1;
>> +
>> +#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_STATX_STX_MNT_ID
>> +static void test_mnt_id(struct statx *buf)
>> +{
>> + FILE *file;
>> + char line[PATH_MAX];
>> + int pid;
>> + unsigned int line_mjr, line_mnr, mnt_id;
>
> Shouldn't we check the STATX_MNT_ID bit here before we event attempt to
> continue? Otherwise if we compile the test with headers where stx_mnt_id
> is defined then run it on old kernel there will be garbage in the
> stx_mnt_id field.
Agree.
>
>> + file = SAFE_FOPEN("/proc/self/mountinfo", "r");
>> +
>> + while (fgets(line, sizeof(line), file)) {
>> + if (sscanf(line, "%d %*d %d:%d",&mnt_id,&line_mjr,&line_mnr) != 3)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (line_mjr == buf->stx_dev_major&& line_mnr == buf->stx_dev_minor)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + SAFE_FCLOSE(file);
>> +
>> + if (buf->stx_mnt_id == mnt_id)
>> + tst_res(TPASS,
>> + "statx.stx_mnt_id equals to mount_id(%d) in /proc/self/mountinfo",
>> + mnt_id);
>> + else
>> + tst_res(TFAIL,
>> + "statx.stx_mnt_id(%d) is different from mount_id(%d) in /proc/self/mountinfo",
>> + buf->stx_mnt_id, mnt_id);
>> +
>> + pid = getpid();
>> + snprintf(line, PATH_MAX, "/proc/%d/fdinfo/%d", pid, file_fd);
>> + TST_ASSERT_FILE_INT(line, "mnt_id:", buf->stx_mnt_id);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static void test_normal_file(void)
>> {
>> struct statx buff;
>> @@ -106,6 +146,11 @@ static void test_normal_file(void)
>> tst_res(TFAIL, "stx_nlink(%u) is different from expected(1)",
>> buff.stx_nlink);
>>
>> +#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_STATX_STX_MNT_ID
>> + test_mnt_id(&buff);
>> +#else
>> + tst_res(TCONF, "stx_mnt_id was not supported until linux 5.8.");
>
> This is confusing at best, if we end up here we were missing the
> structure member during compilation regardless the kernel version.
>
> So this message really should be:
>
> "stx_mnt_id not defined in struct statx"
Will do it in v2.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>
>
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-30 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-25 9:35 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/statx01: Add stx_mnt_id check Yang Xu
2021-11-29 9:09 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-11-30 3:40 ` xuyang2018.jy [this message]
2021-11-30 7:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] " Yang Xu
2021-11-30 7:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] syscalls/statx: Add docparse formatting Yang Xu
2021-11-30 15:54 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-12-01 1:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-11-30 15:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] syscalls/statx01: Add stx_mnt_id check Cyril Hrubis
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=61A59D4D.8020409@fujitsu.com \
--to=xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com \
--cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
--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