[LTP] [PATCH v2] open06.c: convert to new LTP API

[LTP] [PATCH v2] open06.c: convert to new LTP API

[Avinesh Kumar]

Signed-off-by: Avinesh Kumar <akumar@suse.de>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/open/open06.c | 94 +++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/open/open06.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/open/open06.c
index 6c774ce84..a3c3bcb89 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/open/open06.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/open/open06.c
@@ -1,90 +1,34 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+
 /*
- *
  *   Copyright (c) International Business Machines  Corp., 2001
- *
- *   This program is free software;  you can redistribute it and/or modify
- *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- *   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
- *   (at your option) any later version.
- *
- *   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the implied warranty of
- *   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See
- *   the GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- *   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
- *   along with this program;  if not, write to the Free Software
- *   Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+ *   Copyright (c) 2022 SUSE LLC Avinesh Kumar <avinesh.kumar@suse.com>
  */
 
-/*
- * DESCRIPTION
- *	Testcase to check open(2) sets errno to ENXIO correctly.
+/*\
+ * [Description]
  *
- * ALGORITHM
- *	Create a named pipe using mknod(2).  Attempt to
- *	open(2) the pipe for writing. The open(2) should
- *	fail with ENXIO.
+ * Verify that open(2) fails with ENXIO when
+ * O_NONBLOCK | O_WRONLY is set, the named file is a FIFO,
+ * and no process has the FIFO open for reading.
  */
-#include <sys/types.h>
-#include <sys/stat.h>
-#include <fcntl.h>
-#include <errno.h>
-#include <unistd.h>
-#include "test.h"
-
-char *TCID = "open06";
-int TST_TOTAL = 1;
-
-static void setup(void);
-static void cleanup(void);
-
-static char fname[100] = "fifo";
-
-int main(int ac, char **av)
-{
-	int lc;
 
-	tst_parse_opts(ac, av, NULL, NULL);
+#include "tst_test.h"
 
-	setup();
-
-	for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
-		tst_count = 0;
-
-		TEST(open(fname, O_NONBLOCK | O_WRONLY));
-		if (TEST_RETURN != -1) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "open(2) succeeded unexpectedly");
-			continue;
-		}
-
-		if (TEST_ERRNO != ENXIO)
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected ENXIO got %d", TEST_ERRNO);
-		else
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "call returned expected ENXIO error");
-	}
-
-	cleanup();
-	tst_exit();
-}
+#define TEMP_FIFO "tmpfile"
 
 static void setup(void)
 {
-	tst_sig(NOFORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
-
-	TEST_PAUSE;
-
-	tst_tmpdir();
-
-	sprintf(fname, "%s.%d", fname, getpid());
-
-	if (mknod(fname, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0) == -1)
-		tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "mknod FAILED");
+	SAFE_MKFIFO(TEMP_FIFO, 0644);
 }
 
-static void cleanup(void)
+static void run(void)
 {
-	unlink(fname);
-
-	tst_rmdir();
+	TST_EXP_FAIL2(open(TEMP_FIFO, O_NONBLOCK | O_WRONLY), ENXIO);
 }
+
+static struct tst_test test = {
+	.test_all = run,
+	.setup = setup,
+	.needs_tmpdir = 1
+};
-- 
2.36.1


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] open06.c: convert to new LTP API

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Avinesh,

> -	if (mknod(fname, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0) == -1)
> -		tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "mknod FAILED");
> +	SAFE_MKFIFO(TEMP_FIFO, 0644);
You changed test from mknod() to mkfifo(). May I know why?
It would be worth to mention the reason in the commit message.

Should not we keep mknod() ?
SAFE_MKNOD(TEMP_FIFO, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0);

According to man mknod(2) your change is correct:

       POSIX.1-2001 says: "The only portable use of mknod() is to create
       a FIFO-special file.  If mode is not S_IFIFO or dev is not 0, the
       behavior of mknod() is unspecified."  However, nowadays one
       should never use mknod() for this purpose; one should use
       mkfifo(3), a function especially defined for this purpose.

Also note LTP tests should test even deprecated kernel API, we *might* want to
test both mkfifo() and mknod() via .test_variants. But I'd like to hear the
input of the others, because both glibc and musl use SYS_mknod or SYS_mknodat
for mkfifo() implementation with very thin wrapper, thus not sure if it's worth
to test also mknod().

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] open06.c: convert to new LTP API

[Avinesh Kumar]

Hi Petr,

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 6:48:48 PM IST Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Avinesh,
> 
> > -	if (mknod(fname, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0) == -1)
> > -		tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "mknod FAILED");
> > +	SAFE_MKFIFO(TEMP_FIFO, 0644);
> You changed test from mknod() to mkfifo(). May I know why?
> It would be worth to mention the reason in the commit message.
> 
> Should not we keep mknod() ?
> SAFE_MKNOD(TEMP_FIFO, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0);
> 
> According to man mknod(2) your change is correct:
> 
>        POSIX.1-2001 says: "The only portable use of mknod() is to create
>        a FIFO-special file.  If mode is not S_IFIFO or dev is not 0, the
>        behavior of mknod() is unspecified."  However, nowadays one
>        should never use mknod() for this purpose; one should use
>        mkfifo(3), a function especially defined for this purpose.
> 
> Also note LTP tests should test even deprecated kernel API, we *might* want to
> test both mkfifo() and mknod() via .test_variants. But I'd like to hear the
> input of the others, because both glibc and musl use SYS_mknod or SYS_mknodat
> for mkfifo() implementation with very thin wrapper, thus not sure if it's worth
> to test also mknod().
I changed to SAFE_MKFIFO as it seemed more intuitive in this open() test,
but yes, I should have mentioned it in the commit message.
I have not checked the mkfifo() implementation in libraries, so please
lmk which one to proceed with here, I will send updated version if needed.

> 
> Kind regards,
> Petr
> 

Thanks,
Avinesh




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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] open06.c: convert to new LTP API

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

> Hi Petr,

> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 6:48:48 PM IST Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Avinesh,

> > > -	if (mknod(fname, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0) == -1)
> > > -		tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "mknod FAILED");
> > > +	SAFE_MKFIFO(TEMP_FIFO, 0644);
> > You changed test from mknod() to mkfifo(). May I know why?
> > It would be worth to mention the reason in the commit message.

> > Should not we keep mknod() ?
> > SAFE_MKNOD(TEMP_FIFO, S_IFIFO | 0644, 0);

> > According to man mknod(2) your change is correct:

> >        POSIX.1-2001 says: "The only portable use of mknod() is to create
> >        a FIFO-special file.  If mode is not S_IFIFO or dev is not 0, the
> >        behavior of mknod() is unspecified."  However, nowadays one
> >        should never use mknod() for this purpose; one should use
> >        mkfifo(3), a function especially defined for this purpose.

> > Also note LTP tests should test even deprecated kernel API, we *might* want to
> > test both mkfifo() and mknod() via .test_variants. But I'd like to hear the
> > input of the others, because both glibc and musl use SYS_mknod or SYS_mknodat
> > for mkfifo() implementation with very thin wrapper, thus not sure if it's worth
> > to test also mknod().
> I changed to SAFE_MKFIFO as it seemed more intuitive in this open() test,
> but yes, I should have mentioned it in the commit message.
> I have not checked the mkfifo() implementation in libraries, so please
> lmk which one to proceed with here, I will send updated version if needed.

Thinking about it twice, given mknod() / mkfifo() are used in the setup it does
not look worth to run .test_variants just for this. So, unless anybody disagrees,
it's ok to keep SAFE_MKFIFO(). I'll wait little longer before merging it (with
note of changed function in the commit message).

Kind regards,
Petr


> > Kind regards,
> > Petr


> Thanks,
> Avinesh




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