On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
Jan Stancek <jstan...@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert.l...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Jan Stancek" <jstan...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2014 12:58:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Fix wrong args in recvfrom syscall testcase
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:03:07 -0400 (EDT)
> > Jan Stancek <jstan...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/recvfrom/recvfrom01.c
> > > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/recvfrom/recvfrom01.c
> > > > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@
> > > > 0, ENOTSOCK, setup1, cleanup1, "invalid socket
> > > > buffer"},
> > > > /* 4 */
> > > > {
> > > > - PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0, (void *)buf, sizeof(buf), -1,
> > > > + PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0, (void *)buf, -1, 0,
> > >
> > > I understand setting flags to 0, but why changing also buflen to -1?
> > >
> >
> > Because that was the original intent of that test -- to pass an invalid
> > buffer length. But whoever wrote the test put the -1 in the wrong
> > position. At least that's the way it looked to me.
>
> In that case, addrlen can be valid.
>
> Looking at setup2() and previous test, my impression was, that this is
> to test invalid value in addrlen.
>
Oh, I missed that. I'll send an updated patch, and change the text so
it's more clear what it's testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
