Quoting Garrett Cooper ([email protected]): > 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...
So had I :) And I think I'd assumed someone else would push the patch you suggested. I'll go ahead and send one later today. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
