----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Stancek" <[email protected]>
> To: "Zeng Linggang" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "ltp-list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2014 12:05:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/2] mlock/mlock02.c: add EPERM and ENOMEM errno
> tests
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Zeng Linggang" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Jan Stancek" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "ltp-list" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2014 10:50:13 AM
> > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] mlock/mlock02.c: add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests
> >
> > Add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests for mlock(2).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zeng Linggang <[email protected]>
>
> Hi,
>
> part1 looks good to me, comments for part2 are inline.
>
> > ---
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c | 65
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > index 811d141..79f1d29 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > @@ -20,13 +20,22 @@
> > * ALGORITHM
> > * test 1:
> > * Call mlock with a NULL address. ENOMEM should be returned
> > + * test 2:
> > + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> > + * resource limit was 0. EPERM should be returned
> > + * test 3:
> > + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> > + * resource limit was nonzero, but tried to lock more memory than
> > + * the limit permitted. ENOMEM should be returned
> > */
> >
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <sys/mman.h>
> > +#include <pwd.h>
> > #include "test.h"
> > #include "usctest.h"
> > +#include "safe_macros.h"
> >
> > char *TCID = "mlock02";
> >
> > @@ -36,21 +45,29 @@ struct test_case_t {
> > void **addr;
> > int len;
> > int error;
> > - void (*setupfunc) (struct test_case_t *);
> > + void (*setupfunc) ();
>
> If you don't want any parameters add void.
>
> > + void (*cleanupfunc) (void);
> > };
> >
> > static void *addr1;
> > +static char addr2[1024];
> > +static struct passwd *ltpuser;
> > static void setup(void);
> > static void setup1(struct test_case_t *);
> > +static void setup2(void);
> > +static void setup3(void);
> > +static void cleanup2(void);
> > static void cleanup(void);
> > static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *);
> >
> > static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
> > - {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1},
> > + {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> > + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> > + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
> > };
>
> I think I misunderstood intent of **addr. As you outlined it
> above, we can remove one pointer entirely along with addr1:
>
> -static void *addr1;
>
> struct test_case_t {
> - void **addr;
> + void *addr;
>
> static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
> - {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> - {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> - {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
> + {NULL, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> + {addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> + {addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
>
> static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
> - TEST(mlock(*(test->addr), test->len));
> + TEST(mlock(test->addr, test->len));
>
> static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
> -#else
> - *test->addr = NULL;
>
>
> I'm going to try this testcase on ia64 to have a look at that
> ia64 specific setup.
ia64 maps something at that area with pagesize length:
# cat /proc/self/maps
00000000-00004000 r--p 00000000 00:00 0
2000000000000000-200000000003c000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 950277
/lib/ld-2.5.so
2000000000048000-2000000000050000 rw-p 00038000 fd:00 950277
/lib/ld-2.5.so
2000000000050000-20000000002c0000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 950284
/lib/libc-2.5.so
20000000002c0000-20000000002cc000 ---p 00270000 fd:00 950284
/lib/libc-2.5.so
20000000002cc000-20000000002d4000 rw-p 0026c000 fd:00 950284
/lib/libc-2.5.so
20000000002d4000-20000000002e4000 rw-p 20000000002d4000 00:00 0
20000000002e4000-2000000003af4000 r--p 00000000 fd:00 69955
/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive
4000000000000000-4000000000008000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 524317
/bin/cat
6000000000004000-600000000000c000 rw-p 00004000 fd:00 524317
/bin/cat
600000000000c000-6000000000030000 rw-p 600000000000c000 00:00 0 [heap]
600007fffffa8000-600007fffffac000 rw-p 600007fffffa8000 00:00 0
60000ffffff50000-60000ffffffa4000 rw-p 60000ffffffa8000 00:00 0 [stack]
a000000000000000-a000000000020000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
I think we can make that generic and get rid of that ifdef:
static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
{
-#ifdef __ia64__
- test->len = getpagesize() + 1;
-#else
- *test->addr = NULL;
-#endif
+ /* find some unmapped area */
+ test->addr = mmap(NULL, getpagesize(), PROT_NONE,
+ MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, 0, 0);
+ if (test->addr == MAP_FAILED)
+ tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "mmap");
+ if (munmap(test->addr, getpagesize()) < 0)
+ tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "munmap");
}
Works for me on x86 and ia64. I can post it afterwards (rebased to latest
version of your patches).
Regards,
Jan
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
> >
> > int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(TC);
> > -static int exp_enos[] = { ENOMEM, 0 };
> > +static int exp_enos[] = { ENOMEM, EPERM, 0 };
> >
> > int main(int ac, char **av)
> > {
> > @@ -76,9 +93,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> >
> > static void setup(void)
> > {
> > + tst_require_root(NULL);
> > +
> > tst_sig(NOFORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
> >
> > TEST_PAUSE;
> > +
> > + ltpuser = SAFE_GETPWNAM(cleanup, "nobody");
> > }
> >
> > static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
> > @@ -88,6 +109,9 @@ static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
> >
> > TEST(mlock(*(test->addr), test->len));
> >
> > + if (test->cleanupfunc != NULL)
> > + test->cleanupfunc();
> > +
> > if (TEST_RETURN != -1) {
> > tst_resm(TFAIL, "mlock succeeded unexpectedly");
> > return;
> > @@ -111,6 +135,41 @@ static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > +static void setup2(void)
> > +{
> > + struct rlimit rl;
> > +
> > + rl.rlim_max = 0;
> > + rl.rlim_cur = 0;
> > + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rl) != 0) {
> > + tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup,
> > + "setrlimit failed to set the resource for "
> > + "RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to check for mlock()");
> > + }
> > +
> > + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, ltpuser->pw_uid);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void setup3(void)
> > +{
> > + struct rlimit rl;
> > +
> > + rl.rlim_max = 1;
> > + rl.rlim_cur = 1;
> > + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rl) != 0) {
> > + tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup,
> > + "setrlimit failed to set the resource for "
> > + "RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to check for mlock()");
> > + }
> > +
> > + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, ltpuser->pw_uid);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void cleanup2(void)
> > +{
> > + SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > static void cleanup(void)
> > {
> > TEST_CLEANUP;
> > --
> > 1.8.4.2
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> Read the Whitepaper.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
