[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmctl05.c: Fix ENOSPC error

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> Hi Xiao,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 03:34:53PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
> > Running shmctl05 got the following error on some distros(e.g. RHEL7.5):
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > tst_safe_sysv_ipc.c:111: BROK: shmctl05.c:51: shmget(61455, 4096, 3c0)
> > failed: ENOSPC
> > shmctl05.c:104: WARN: pthread_join(..., (nil)) failed: EDEADLK
> > tst_safe_sysv_ipc.c:111: BROK: shmctl05.c:81: shmget(61455, 4096, 3c0)
> > failed: ENOSPC
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > From shmctl(2) manpage, shmctl(IPC_RMID) just marks a shm segment to
> > be destroyed, and the segment will only actually be destroyed after
> > the last process detaches it (i.e., when the shm_nattch member of the
> > associated structure shmid_ds is zero).  So it is possible for the
> > number of created shm segments to exceed the system-wide maximum number
> > (e.g. shmmni is 4096) if only shmctl(IPC_RMID) has been called.
> > 
> > From shmdt(2) manpage, a successful shmdt(2) call will decrement
> > the shm_nattch by one.  So we should call shmdt(2) to decrement
> > the shm_nattch to zero before calling shmctl(IPC_RMID).
> > 
> > Add shmdt(2) to ensure that all shm segments are actually destroyed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl05.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl05.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl05.c
> > index a960cc9..0eb0776 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl05.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl05.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,8 @@ static void do_test(void)
> >  				"Unexpected remap_file_pages() error");
> >  		}
> >  		tst_fzsync_wait_a(&fzsync_pair);
> > +		/* ensure that a shm segment will actually be destroyed */
> > +		SAFE_SHMDT(addr);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	tst_res(TPASS, "didn't crash");
> > --
> 
> I think you missed part of the explanation for why this test (apparently)
> fails
> on old kernels.  On recent kernels, remap_file_pages() *is* unmapping the shm
> segment, so the test passes.  Perhaps the behavior of remap_file_pages()
> changed
> in v4.0 when its implementation was replaced with an emulation.
> 
> Calling shmdt() is probably the right fix for the test, but you shouldn't
> call
> the SAFE_* version since shmdt() will fail with an error on recent kernels,
> which with the SAFE_* version would fail the test.

Pushed with plain shmdt(), expanded comment and commit message.

Thanks,
Jan