sysctl03: sysctl returns EACCES after 2.6.33-rc1
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
http://marc.info/?l=ltp-list&m=126502355614857&w=2
Signature · 15 lines
Thanks& Regards Rishi Kesh K Rajak IBM LTC, Bangalore LTP Maintainer Please join IRC: #ltp @ freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace, Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with tst_res(3).
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace, Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW
http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).
Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Thanks for your support.
- Rishi
Quoted 2 lines
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig +21 -14
@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@* sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION -* Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. +* Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES +* correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 +* and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write -* permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. +* permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write -* permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. +* permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM +* or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]
@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@* * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer +* 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.
@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) {int lc;char *msg; +int exp_eno;char osname[OSNAMESZ ];int osnamelth, status;
@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)setup (); +if ((tst_kvercmp (2 ,6 ,32 )) <=0 ){ + exp_eno =EPERM ; + }else { + exp_eno =EACCES ; + exp_enos[0 ] =EACCES ; + } +TEST_EXP_ENOS (exp_enos);/* check looping state if -i option is given */
@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) }else {TEST_ERROR_LOG (TEST_ERRNO ); -if (TEST_ERRNO !=EPERM ) { -tst_resm (TFAIL , -"Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s" , -EPERM ,TEST_ERRNO , -strerror (TEST_ERRNO )); +if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { +tst_resm (TFAIL |TTERRNO ,"Got unxpected error" ); }else { -tst_resm (TPASS ,"Got expected EPERM error" ); +tst_resm (TPASS |TTERRNO ,"Got expected error" ); } }
@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) }else {TEST_ERROR_LOG (TEST_ERRNO ); -if (TEST_ERRNO !=EPERM ) { -tst_resm (TFAIL ,"Expected EPERM, got " -"%d" ,TEST_ERRNO ); +if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { +tst_resm (TFAIL |TTERRNO ,"Got unxpected error" ); }else { -tst_resm (TPASS ,"Got expected EPERM " -"error" ); +tst_resm (TPASS |TTERRNO ,"Got expected error" ); } }
Thank you.
- Shi Weihua
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks for your support.
- RishiQuoted 2 lines
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 97 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 7 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {
Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 1 line
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");
Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi Weihua
It always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected
without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the tst_resm format strings to be something like the following?
tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d, ret_code = %d", exp_errno_blah, exp_ret_code_blah);
OR:
tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d, ret_code = %d - got errno = %d, ret_code = %d", exp_errno_blah, exp_ret_code_blah, errno_blah, ret_code_blah);
I've been debating about doing this in a macro out of include/,
but I haven't gotten there yet...
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected
without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise thetst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?
Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_code has not been defined in sysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig +23 -14
@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@* sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION -* Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. +* Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES +* correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 +* and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write -* permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. +* permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write -* permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. +* permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM +* or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]
@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@* * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer +* 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.
@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)setup (); +if ((tst_kvercmp (2 ,6 ,32 )) <=0 ){ + exp_enos[0 ] =EPERM ; + }else { + exp_enos[0 ] =EACCES ; + } +TEST_EXP_ENOS (exp_enos);/* check looping state if -i option is given */
@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) }else {TEST_ERROR_LOG (TEST_ERRNO ); -if (TEST_ERRNO !=EPERM ) { -tst_resm (TFAIL , -"Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s" , -EPERM ,TEST_ERRNO , -strerror (TEST_ERRNO )); +if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0 ]) { +tst_resm (TFAIL |TTERRNO ,"Got unxpected error " +"(expected error = %d)" , exp_enos[0 ]); }else { -tst_resm (TPASS ,"Got expected EPERM error" ); +tst_resm (TPASS |TTERRNO ,"Got expected error " +"(errno = %d)" , exp_enos[0 ]); } }
@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) }else {TEST_ERROR_LOG (TEST_ERRNO ); -if (TEST_ERRNO !=EPERM ) { -tst_resm (TFAIL ,"Expected EPERM, got " -"%d" ,TEST_ERRNO ); +if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0 ]) { +tst_resm (TFAIL |TTERRNO ,"Got unxpected error " +"(expected error = %d)" , exp_enos[0 ]); }else { -tst_resm (TPASS ,"Got expected EPERM " -"error" ); +tst_resm (TPASS |TTERRNO ,"Got expected error " +"(errno = %d)" , exp_enos[0 ]); } }
Quoted 8 lines
I've been debating about doing this in a macro out of
include/,
but I haven't gotten there yet...Thanks,
-Garrett
Signature · 12 lines
Shi Weihua ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }
Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.
If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 232 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected
without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise thetst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
Quoted 5 lines
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
At this time of day, I can not find any documentation about EPERM->EACCES. But, i caught the kernel commit which caused ltp bug:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=26a7034b40ba80f82f64fa251a2cbf49f9971c6a
Maybe it can help you to judge.
Quoted 5 lines
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 237 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 236 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
At this time of day, I can not find any documentation about
EPERM->EACCES. But, i caught the kernel commit which caused ltp bug:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=26a7034b40ba80f82f64fa251a2cbf49f9971c6a
Maybe it can help you to judge.
Wow... that's a fair amount of code refactoring and additions to the syscall.
Yes, all of the issues with opening a directory and reading/writing now apply to sysctl(2), especially if someone attempts to read from a write-only descriptor, or vice versa.
I hate to do this in such a reactive manner as this should have been done up front, but the 1) documentation and 2) test need to be updated. 1) is more key today because I'm not sure how much testing the developer did before he committed to kernel.org, but without updated documentation and requirements we can't write proper tests.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Quoted 237 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 236 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
At this time of day, I can not find any documentation about
EPERM->EACCES. But, i caught the kernel commit which caused ltp bug:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=26a7034b40ba80f82f64fa251a2cbf49f9971c6a
Maybe it can help you to judge.
Wow... that's a fair amount of code refactoring and additions to the syscall.
Yes, all of the issues with opening a directory and reading/writing now apply to sysctl(2), especially if someone attempts to read from a write-only descriptor, or vice versa.
I hate to do this in such a reactive manner as this should have been done up front, but the 1) documentation and 2) test need to be updated. 1) is more key today because I'm not sure how much testing the developer did before he committed to kernel.org, but without updated documentation and requirements we can't write proper tests.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Quoted 245 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 237 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 236 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
At this time of day, I can not find any documentation about
EPERM->EACCES. But, i caught the kernel commit which caused ltp bug:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=26a7034b40ba80f82f64fa251a2cbf49f9971c6a
Maybe it can help you to judge.
Quoted 5 lines
Wow... that's a fair amount of code refactoring and additions to the syscall.
Yes, all of the issues with opening a directory and reading/writing now apply to sysctl(2), especially if someone attempts to read from a write-only descriptor, or vice versa.
No mismatches of file descriptor modes and how the descriptor is accessed can not occur. There is a file descriptor but the file descriptor is completely internal to binary_sysctl(), and it is opened with the mode of what we are trying to use. There are no user space controllable parts there.
Looking through the old sysctl code it appears that it was a bug that kept it from returning EACCES. The code has had this beautiful snippet in it for ages:
static int test_perm(int mode, int op)
{
if (!current->euid)
mode >>= 6;
else if (in_egroup_p(0))
mode >>= 3;
if ((mode & op & 0007) == op)
return 0;
return -EACCES;
}I admit that the manpage doesn't document EACCES but the manpage has always said don't use sysctl(2) so...
Quoted 5 lines
I hate to do this in such a reactive manner as this should have been done up front, but the 1) documentation and 2) test need to be updated. 1) is more key today because I'm not sure how much testing the developer did before he committed to kernel.org, but without updated documentation and requirements we can't write proper tests.
You may see a slightly different error code from sysctl(2) on failure but otherwise sysctl(2) should be unchanged, and yes I did test it. Of course I was not being picky about which error code I got on failure.
What exists today is simply a backwards compatibility wrapper of sysctl(2) built on top of /proc/sys. sysctl(2) was a practically unmaintained bit-rotting pile, that was never adequately maintained or tested.
At this point nothing should change again until such time as the code is disabled/removed by default.
Eric
Quoted 263 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 245 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 237 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 236 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 216 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 103 lines · Garrett Cooper
Ok.. one last thing.
Quoted 100 lines · Shi Weihua
Quoted 11 lines · Rishikesh K Rajak
Quoted 9 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 6 lines · Rishikesh
Hi Shi,
Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch. Will reply you soon.
I looked at the patch finally.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks garret.
Quoted 4 lines
Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value. There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's already done with
tst_res(3).Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
Signed-off-by Shi Weihua <[email protected]>---
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-9@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) { int lc; char *msg; + int exp_eno; char osname[OSNAMESZ]; int osnamelth, status;@@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_eno = EPERM; + } else { + exp_eno = EACCES; + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error"); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }@@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);Quoted 6 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 159
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-3- if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
Using exp_enos[0] is ok. pls check the latest patch in this mail.
Quoted 20 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 160
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-0+ tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error");Typo.
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +1
-2} else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error"); } }Thank you.
- Shi WeihuaIt always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resmformat strings to be something like the following?Quoted 8 lines
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah);OR:
tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,ret_code= %d - got errno = %d,ret_code= %d",exp_errno_blah,exp_ret_code_blah,errno_blah,ret_code_blah);
ret_codehas not been defined insysctl03.c, i think it's unnecessarily to import a new parameter. maybe, we can use your macro when it created. ;-)kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +18
-12@@ -22,15 +22,18 @@ * sysctl03.c * * DESCRIPTION - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly. + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1 + * and higher. * * ALGORITHM * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM. + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES. * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM. + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM + * or EACCES. * * USAGE: <for command-line> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ * * HISTORY * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected] * * RESTRICTIONS * Test must be run as root.@@ -96,6 +100,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) setup(); + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){ + exp_enos[0] = EPERM; + } else { + exp_enos[0] = EACCES; + } + TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos); /* check looping state if -i option is given */@@ -114,13 +124,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s", - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO, - strerror(TEST_ERRNO)); + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }@@ -147,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) } else { TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO); - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got " - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 int main(int ac, char **av) · line 166
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-23 09:35:20.000000000 -0500 renamed from kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22 14:38:26.000000000 -0500 +5
-2+ if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_enos[0]) { + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected error " + "(expected error = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } else { - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM " - "error"); + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error " + "(errno = %d)", exp_enos[0]); } }Ok, before I go and commit this, there are two things I need to know (because trusty Google didn't turn up any results for this behavioral change):
1. The change is legitimate.
2. The documentation is up to date, or a bug has been filed for the documentation change.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
If you can provide these two things, I'll commit the change.
At this time of day, I can not find any documentation about
EPERM->EACCES. But, i caught the kernel commit which caused ltp bug:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=26a7034b40ba80f82f64fa251a2cbf49f9971c6a
Maybe it can help you to judge.Quoted 5 lines
Wow... that's a fair amount of code refactoring and additions to the syscall.
Yes, all of the issues with opening a directory and reading/writing now apply to sysctl(2), especially if someone attempts to read from a write-only descriptor, or vice versa.
No mismatches of file descriptor modes and how the descriptor is accessed can not occur. There is a file descriptor but the file descriptor is completely internal to
binary_sysctl(), and it is opened with the mode of what we are trying to use. There are no user space controllable parts there.Looking through the old sysctl code it appears that it was a bug that kept it from returning EACCES. The code has had this beautiful snippet in it for ages:
Quoted 10 lines
static int
test_perm(int mode, int op)
{
if (!current->euid)
mode >>= 6;
else if (in_egroup_p(0))
mode >>= 3;
if ((mode & op & 0007) == op)
return 0;
return-EACCES;
}
Wow. Took a second for me to stare and it and see what you mean,
but yeah -- that is pretty dang awesome that it was always hardwired to return 0.
Quoted 2 lines
I admit that the manpage doesn't document EACCES but the manpage has always said don't use sysctl(2) so...
Well, if someone bumbles across this later, it will be a confusing
issue to work through. It's better to be documented instead of undocumented. I'll file the bug upstream to document this, but it would be nice to determine if there are any more immediate gaps which need to be addressed in the changes.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I hate to do this in such a reactive manner as this should have been done up front, but the 1) documentation and 2) test need to be updated. 1) is more key today because I'm not sure how much testing the developer did before he committed to kernel.org, but without updated documentation and requirements we can't write proper tests.
You may see a slightly different error code from sysctl(2) on failure but otherwise sysctl(2) should be unchanged, and yes I did test it. Of course I was not being picky about which error code I got on failure.
Hmmm.. ok. We just get 20 questions when something fails and it's
not documented why it should fail in a particular manner :).
Quoted 4 lines
What exists today is simply a backwards compatibility wrapper of sysctl(2) built on top of
/proc/sys. sysctl(2) was a practically unmaintained bit-rotting pile, that was never adequately maintained or tested.
Yeah, you're probably right (especially because Linux tends not to
focus on sysctl(3) like the BSDs do).
Quoted 2 lines
At this point nothing should change again until such time as the code is disabled/removed by default.
Hmmm... ok. I assume that sysctl(2) is going completely out the
window in the future, in favor of what (just out of curiosity)? 100% sysfs only tunables maybe?
Thanks,
-Garrett
Quoted 31 lines · Garrett Cooper
Quoted 18 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 6 lines · Garrett Cooper
Wow... that's a fair amount of code refactoring and additions to the syscall.
Yes, all of the issues with opening a directory and reading/writing now apply to sysctl(2), especially if someone attempts to read from a write-only descriptor, or vice versa.
No mismatches of file descriptor modes and how the descriptor is accessed can not occur. There is a file descriptor but the file descriptor is completely internal to
binary_sysctl(), and it is opened with the mode of what we are trying to use. There are no user space controllable parts there.Looking through the old sysctl code it appears that it was a bug that kept it from returning EACCES. The code has had this beautiful snippet in it for ages:
Quoted 10 lines
static int
test_perm(int mode, int op)
{
if (!current->euid)
mode >>= 6;
else if (in_egroup_p(0))
mode >>= 3;
if ((mode & op & 0007) == op)
return 0;
return-EACCES;
}
Quoted 3 lines
Wow. Took a second for me to stare and it and see what you mean,
but yeah -- that is pretty dang awesome that it was always hardwired to return 0.
Sorry that wasn't clear without context. What used to happen where all of the callers of that function did:
if (test_perm(...))
return -EPERM;
Instead of the much more conventional:
err = test_perm()
if (err)
return err;
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I admit that the manpage doesn't document EACCES but the manpage has always said don't use sysctl(2) so...
Well, if someone bumbles across this later, it will be a confusing
issue to work through. It's better to be documented instead of undocumented. I'll file the bug upstream to document this, but it would be nice to determine if there are any more immediate gaps which need to be addressed in the changes.
I think the linux test project may be nearly the only caller of sysctl(2) at this point. At least until recently there was one caller in arm glibc. But finding any program that uses sysctl(2) is nearly impossible.
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 3 lines
You may see a slightly different error code from sysctl(2) on failure but otherwise sysctl(2) should be unchanged, and yes I did test it. Of course I was not being picky about which error code I got on failure.
Hmmm.. ok. We just get 20 questions when something fails and it's
not documented why it should fail in a particular manner :).Quoted 4 lines
What exists today is simply a backwards compatibility wrapper of sysctl(2) built on top of
/proc/sys. sysctl(2) was a practically unmaintained bit-rotting pile, that was never adequately maintained or tested.Yeah, you're probably right (especially because Linux tends not to
focus on sysctl(3) like the BSDs do).
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
At this point nothing should change again until such time as the code is disabled/removed by default.
Hmmm... ok. I assume that sysctl(2) is going completely out the
window in the future, in favor of what (just out of curiosity)? 100% sysfs only tunables maybe?
/proc/sys is going to stay. Which is what people have actually used. Even /sbin/sysctl has always used /proc/sys. Nothing anyone actually uses is going to go away. Just the practically dead code that is the syscall is slowly going away. Since I have written the emulation layer the need for it to disappear is less immediate than it once was, but I will strongly discourage anyone from using it.
Eric