From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:52:26 +0200
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 3/4] syscalls/shmget05: Add test for
 /proc/sys/kernel/shm_next_id
In-Reply-To: <1620809541-6891-3-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
References: <1620809541-6891-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
 <1620809541-6891-3-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <YPlb+ogqehyG210l@yuki>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi!
First of all, sorry for the late response.

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..601609648
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2021 FUJITSU LIMITED. All rights reserved.
> + * Author: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> + */
> +
> +/*\
> + * [Description]
> + *
> + * It is a basic test about shm_next_id.
                           ^
			   for
> + *
> + * shm_next_id specifies desired id for next allocated IPC shared memory. By
> + * default they are equal to -1, which means generic allocation logic.
              ^
	      it's instead of 'they are'
> + * Possible values to set are in range {0..INT_MAX}.
> + * Toggle with non-default value will be set back to -1 by kernel after

This would probably be better with just: "The value will be set back ..."

> + * successful IPC object allocation.
> + */
> +
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <sys/types.h>
> +#include <sys/ipc.h>
> +#include <sys/shm.h>
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
> +#include "libnewipc.h"
> +
> +#define NEXT_ID_PATH "/proc/sys/kernel/shm_next_id"
> +static int shm_id, pid;
> +static key_t shmkey;
> +
> +static void verify_shmget(void)
> +{
> +	SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(NEXT_ID_PATH, "%d", pid);
> +
> +	shm_id = SAFE_SHMGET(shmkey, SHM_SIZE, SHM_RW | IPC_CREAT);
> +	if (shm_id == pid)
> +		tst_res(TPASS, "shm_next_id succeeded, shm id %d", pid);
> +	else
> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "shm_next_id failed, expected id %d, but got %d", pid, shm_id);
> +
> +	TST_ASSERT_INT(NEXT_ID_PATH, -1);
> +	SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_RMID, NULL);
> +	pid++;
> +}
> +
> +static void setup(void)
> +{
> +	shmkey = GETIPCKEY();
> +	pid = getpid();
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> +	if (shm_id != -1)
> +		SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_RMID, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +	.needs_tmpdir = 1,

I guess that we want this for the GETIPCKEY() right?

> +	.setup = setup,
> +	.cleanup = cleanup,
> +	.test_all = verify_shmget,
> +	.needs_kconfigs = (const char *[]) {
> +		"CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y",
> +		NULL
> +	},
> +	.needs_root = 1,
> +};

Looks good.

With the minor adjustements in the test description:

Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz