public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Teo Couprie Diaz <teo.coupriediaz@arm.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/1] brk: use direct syscalls
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 20:30:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4UMUqkLijWXOWu6@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221128091508.75414-1-teo.coupriediaz@arm.com>

> Hello LTP maintainers,

> This patch slightly reworks the brk01 and brk02 tests to use direct
> syscalls with tst_syscall rather than calling through the libc.

> While running LTP on a musl-based distribution, we noticed that the brk
> tests were failing. It turns out that Musl prevents the use of brk
> with their wrapper: it always returns an error.
> This isn't too egregious as using brk is deprecated in favor of malloc
> and it isn't part of POSIX anymore since POSIX.1-2001, but it _is_
> different from glibc's beavior, which allows using it.

> This patch allows proper testing of brk's functionality, independent of
> libc specifics, and thus allows the tests to pass on Musl-based
> distributions like Alpine.

> Do you think this is a correct approach for LTP ?
> From what I could see there are a few tests that use tst_syscall directly
> and it doesn't affect the logic much for brk.

LGTM.

I wonder if it makes sense to add .test_variants [1] for glibc and uclibc,
e.g. for brk01():

void verify_brk(void)
{
	if (tst_variant) {
		tst_res(TINFO, "Testing sbrk()");
		cur_brk = (uintptr_t)sbrk(0);
	} else {
		tst_res(TINFO, "Testing __NR_brk");
		cur_brk = (void *)tst_syscall(__NR_brk, 0);
	}

}

struct tst_test test = {
	...
#ifdef __GLIBC__
	.test_variants = 2,
#else
	.test_variants = 1,
#endif
	...

Not sure if it should be testeed also on android, i.e:
#if defined(__GLIBC__) || defined(__ANDROID__)

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/C-Test-API#130-testing-similar-syscalls-in-one-test

> Green build:
> https://github.com/Teo-CD/ltp/actions/runs/3563193507

> This was discovered in the context of the Morello project[0].
> [0]: https://www.morello-project.org/

> Teo Couprie Diaz (1):
>   syscalls/brk: use direct syscall

>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/brk/brk01.c | 15 ++++++---------
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/brk/brk02.c | 14 ++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-28 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-28  9:15 [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/1] brk: use direct syscalls Teo Couprie Diaz
2022-11-28  9:15 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/1] syscalls/brk: use direct syscall Teo Couprie Diaz
2022-11-28 19:30 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2022-11-29 13:09   ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/1] brk: use direct syscalls Cyril Hrubis
2022-11-29 13:36     ` Petr Vorel
2022-11-29 13:40       ` Cyril Hrubis
2022-11-30 13:03         ` Teo Couprie Diaz
2022-11-30 13:15           ` Cyril Hrubis
2022-11-30 14:22             ` Teo Couprie Diaz
2022-11-30 12:49   ` Teo Couprie Diaz

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=Y4UMUqkLijWXOWu6@pevik \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=teo.coupriediaz@arm.com \
    /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