Test statx() with flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.
PATCH 1/1 Test statx() with flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.
--- runtest/syscalls | 1 + testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/.gitignore | 1 + testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c | 194 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 196 insertions(+) create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c
runtest/syscalls +1 -0
@@ -1504,3 +1504,4 @@ statx02 statx02 statx03 statx03 statx04 statx04 statx05 statx05 +statx11 statx11
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/.gitignore +1 -0
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ /statx03 /statx04 /statx05 +/statx11
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +194 -0
194 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
PATCH 1/1 Test statx() with flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.
Hi!
runtest/syscalls statx02 statx02 · line 1507
Quoted 8 lines
runtest/syscalls +1
-0@@ -1504,3 +1504,4 @@ statx02 statx02 statx03 statx03 statx04 statx04 statx05 statx05 +statx11 statx11
Can you please make sure that your patches include newlines at the end of the files?
If these are missing adding lines at the end of the file produces ugly patches...
Quoted 107 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/.gitignore +1
-0@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ /statx03 /statx04 /statx05 +/statx11testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +92
-0@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or later +/* +* Copyright (c) Zilogic Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2018 +* Email : [email protected] +*/ + +/* +* Testcase for statx syscall with AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag +* +* --Test Logic-- +* Configure a mount point for autofs. +* +* Spawn a new child process. +* +* statx() is invoked within the child process- +* With AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag- Child won't send any autofs notification +* message to parent. +* Without AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag- Child will send autofs notification +* message to parent, that can be read via pipe. +* +*/ + +#include <stdio.h> +#include <stdlib.h> +#include <sys/time.h> +#include <sys/eventfd.h> +#include <stdbool.h> + +#include "tst_test.h" +#include "lapi/stat.h" + +#define MNTPOINT "mntpoint" + +static int autofs_fds[2 ] = {-1 }; +static int ev_fd =-1 ; +static int mounted; +static int pipe_created; +static int mnt_dir_created; +static int ev_fd_created; + +static bool check_autofs_notification_msg (int autofs_read_fd,int ev_fd) +{ +int retval; +int max_fd; +fd_set rfds; +u_int64_t statx_status; +struct timeval tv; +bool notification_msg_status; + + max_fd = (autofs_read_fd > ev_fd) ? autofs_read_fd : ev_fd; + +FD_ZERO (&rfds); +FD_SET (autofs_read_fd, &rfds); +FD_SET (ev_fd, &rfds); + + tv.tv_sec =5 ; + tv.tv_usec =0 ; + + retval =select ((max_fd +1 ), &rfds,NULL ,NULL , &tv); +if (retval ==-1 ) +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO ,"select() failed" ); + +if (FD_ISSET (autofs_read_fd, &rfds)) + notification_msg_status = true; +else + notification_msg_status = false; + +if (FD_ISSET (ev_fd, &rfds)) { +SAFE_READ (0 , ev_fd, &statx_status,sizeof (statx_status)); +if (statx_status ==1 ) +tst_brk (TBROK ,"statx() failed" ); +else if (statx_status ==2 ) +tst_res (TINFO ,"statx() passed" ); + } + +return notification_msg_status; +} + +void autofs_mount (int fd) +{ +char mnt_options[64 ]; + +SAFE_MKDIR (MNTPOINT ,0666 ); + mnt_dir_created =1 ; + +snprintf (mnt_options,sizeof (mnt_options), +"fd=%i,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct" , fd); + +SAFE_MOUNT ("ltp_test" ,MNTPOINT ,"autofs" ,0 , mnt_options); + mounted =1 ; +} +
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 102
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +10
-0+static void autofs_run_test (bool automount) +{ +pid_t pid; +bool mnt_status; +u_int64_t value; +struct statx file_info; + + pid =SAFE_FORK (); +if (!pid) { +setpgrp ();
Why do you do this?
Quoted 6 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +6
-0+TEST (statx (AT_FDCWD ,MNTPOINT , + (automount) ?0 :AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT , +0 , &file_info) + ); + +if (TST_RET ==-1 ) {
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 119
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +10
-0+/* 1 -> statx() fail*/ + value =1 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value)); + +exit (1 ); + } + +/* 2 -> statx() pass*/ + value =2 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value));
There is no need to propagate anything from the child process, if you call tst_res(TPASS, ...) in the child process the result will be propagated automatically to the parent. So there is no need for the eventfd at all.
Quoted 44 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +44
-0+exit (0 ); + } + + mnt_status =check_autofs_notification_msg (autofs_fds[0 ], ev_fd); +if (automount == mnt_status) +tst_res (TPASS ,"Mount Status: %d Expected Status: %d" , + mnt_status, automount); +else +tst_brk (TFAIL ,"Mount Status: %d Expected Status: %d" , + mnt_status, automount); + +SAFE_KILL (pid,SIGKILL ); +SAFE_WAITPID (pid,NULL ,0 ); +} + +static void setup (void ) +{ +/* +* Need for eventfd()- +* To make the parent process aware that statx() has +* passed/failed in the child process. +*/ + ev_fd =eventfd (0 ,O_NONBLOCK ); +if (ev_fd ==-1 ) +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO ,"eventfd() failed" ); + ev_fd_created =1 ; + +SAFE_PIPE (autofs_fds); + pipe_created =1 ; + +autofs_mount (autofs_fds[1 ]); +} + +static void cleanup (void ) +{ +if (mounted) +SAFE_UMOUNT (MNTPOINT ); + +if (mnt_dir_created) +SAFE_RMDIR (MNTPOINT ); + +if (ev_fd_created) +SAFE_CLOSE (ev_fd); +
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 174
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +10
-0+if (pipe_created) { +SAFE_CLOSE (autofs_fds[0 ]); +SAFE_CLOSE (autofs_fds[1 ]); + } +} + +const struct { +bool automount; +} tests[] = { {false}, + {true} };
There is absolutely no need for this, you can just do !!tst_nr to get bool from the test number instead...
Quoted 25 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +19
-0+static void test_controller (unsigned int tst_nr) +{ +bool automount = tests[tst_nr].automount; + +tst_res (TINFO ,"statx(AT_FDCWD, %s, %s, 0, &file_info)" , +MNTPOINT , (automount) ?"0" :"AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT" ); + +autofs_run_test (automount); +} + +static struct tst_test test = { + .tcnt =ARRAY_SIZE (tests), + .test = test_controller, + .needs_tmpdir =1 , + .forks_child =1 , + .needs_root =1 , + .setup = setup, + .cleanup = cleanup, +};Signature · 5 lines
2.17.1 -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
Signature · 2 lines
Cyril Hrubis [email protected]
PATCH 1/1 Test statx() with flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.
Hi,
Quoted 5 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 102
Quoted 3 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +3
-0+ pid =SAFE_FORK (); +if (!pid) { +setpgrp ();Why do you do this?
* Parent is getting the autofs notification message only by setting the process group ID of the child process to it's process ID.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +13
-0+TEST (statx (AT_FDCWD ,MNTPOINT , + (automount) ?0 :AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT , +0 , &file_info) + ); + +if (TST_RET ==-1 ) { +/* 1 -> statx() fail*/ + value =1 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value)); + +exit (1 ); + } +
Quoted 8 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 119
Quoted 3 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +3
-0+/* 2 -> statx() pass*/ + value =2 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value));There is no need to propagate anything from the child process, if you call
tst_res(TPASS, ...)in the child process the result will be propagated automatically to the parent. So there is no need for the eventfd at all.
* Parent won't get any autofs request from child if, ** statx fails
** statx with AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag
We tried using event_fd() in order to identify between these two scenarios and read from pipe only if statx passed. Breaking the test from the child if statx fails is not affecting the parent.
Thanks and Regards,
Vishnu K
PATCH 1/1 Test statx() with flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.
Hi!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 102
Quoted 3 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +3
-0+ pid =SAFE_FORK (); +if (!pid) { +setpgrp ();Why do you do this?
* Parent is getting the autofs notification message only by setting the process group ID of the child process to it's process ID.
Ah, right, I remember that now, kernel checks that the process is in a different process group before it attempts to send the event. Maybe we should include the comment I had in the example code here so that it's clear why it's needed.
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 13 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +13
-0+TEST (statx (AT_FDCWD ,MNTPOINT , + (automount) ?0 :AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT , +0 , &file_info) + ); + +if (TST_RET ==-1 ) { +/* 1 -> statx() fail*/ + value =1 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value)); + +exit (1 ); + } +Quoted 8 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c line 119
Quoted 3 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx11.c new file +3
-0+/* 2 -> statx() pass*/ + value =2 ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , ev_fd, &value,sizeof (value));There is no need to propagate anything from the child process, if you call
tst_res(TPASS, ...)in the child process the result will be propagated automatically to the parent. So there is no need for the eventfd at all.
Quoted 8 lines
* Parent won't get any autofs request from child if, ** statx fails
** statx withAT_NO_AUTOMOUNTflagWe tried using
event_fd()in order to identify between these two scenarios and read from pipe only if statx passed. Breaking the test from the child if statx fails is not affecting the parent.
You can still do tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "statx() failed"); in the child which will propagate to the parent and fail the test eventually. The only difference that this will happen once the parent test process exists after it prints PASS message since the select timeouted as we didn't get any notification.
So the output will looks like:
PASS: statx() succeeded
PASS: Got notification without AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT
BROK: statx() failed: EIVAL
PASS: Didn't get notification with AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT
BROK: Reported by child (3243)
and the exit value will non-zero since the test have been failed by the child process.
Signature · 2 lines
Cyril Hrubis [email protected]