On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Garrett Cooper ([email protected]):
>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Munipradeep Beerakam
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I noticed that mqns test cases are failing. I am using March 2010 LTP.
>> > After changing mq_open syscall in mqns_01.c file, test is passing. Same
>> > thing is happening w.r.t. other mqns test cases. Below is the change I
>> > made.
>> >
>> > Changed
>> >   mqd = syscall(__NR_mq_open, SLASH_MQ1, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL,0777,
>> > NULL);
>> >
>> > to
>> >   mqd = mq_open(SLASH_MQ1, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0777, NULL);
>> >
>> > Failure output I got is below:
>> > # ./mqns_01
>> > posixmq_namespace_01    0  TINFO  :  Testing posix mq namespaces through
>> > unshare(2).
>> >
>> > mq_open: Permission denied
>> > posixmq_namespace_01    1  TFAIL  :  mq_open failed
>> >
>> > After changing as above, I got the below output:
>> > # ./mqns_01
>> > posixmq_namespace_01    0  TINFO  :  Testing posix mq namespaces through
>> > unshare(2).
>> >
>> > posixmq_namespace_01    0  TINFO  :  Checking namespaces isolation from
>> > parent to child
>> >
>> > posixmq_namespace_01    1  TPASS  :  child process didn't find mqueue
>> >
>> > So, my question is that what is the difference between the two, i.e.,
>> > the previous one and the changed one. Both are calling the same mq_open
>
> See http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09073.html
> for the ansswer.
>
>> > system call. But first one is failing whereas the second one is
>> > succeeding.
>> >
>> > So, do we need to modify all mqns test cases to the new form?
>>
>>     Track down the execution path by first starting with glibc. It
>> might be a library vs kernel mismatch or a bug. Make sure that the
>> syscall number matches per your architecture, determine whether or not
>> your architecture has issues executing code in a biarch manner (64-bit
>> on 32-bit) if it applies.
>> HTH,

Ah, forgot about that...
-Garrett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to