[LTP] [RFC 2/3] syscalls/fanotify03: included execve() to generate_events() to increase test coverage

[Amir Goldstein]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:28 AM Matthew Bobrowski
<mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org> wrote:
>
> * Created an executable helper program 'fanotify_child' so that can be
>   used within fanotify tests
>
> * Defined .resource_files so that additional test resources can be
>   copied across to the tmp working directory i.e. fanotify_child
>
> * Updated generate_events() so that it now includes a call to execve()
>   on fanotify_child. This is so that we can increase the overall test
>   coverage by generating more events on a watched object
>
> * Updated each tcase events[] to accommodate for the additional events
>   generated by execve()
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore |  1 +
>  .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify03.c     | 83 ++++++++++++-------
>  .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify_child.c | 14 ++++
>  3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify_child.c
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore
> index c26f2bd27..af420b8b3 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore
> @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@
>  /fanotify08
>  /fanotify09
>  /fanotify10
> +/fanotify_child
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify03.c
> index cca15aa00..f9418ee6b 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify03.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>
>  #define BUF_SIZE 256
>  #define TST_TOTAL 3
> +#define TEST_APP "fanotify_child"
>
>  static char fname[BUF_SIZE];
>  static char buf[BUF_SIZE];
> @@ -60,28 +61,31 @@ static struct tcase {
>         {
>                 "inode mark permission events",
>                 INIT_FANOTIFY_MARK_TYPE(INODE),
> -               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 2,
> +               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 3,
>                 {
>                         {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_ALLOW},
> -                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY}
> +                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY},
> +                       {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_DENY}
>                 }
>         },
>         {
>                 "mount mark permission events",
>                 INIT_FANOTIFY_MARK_TYPE(MOUNT),
> -               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 2,
> +               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 3,
>                 {
>                         {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_ALLOW},
> -                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY}
> +                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY},
> +                       {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_DENY}
>                 }
>         },
>         {
>                 "filesystem mark permission events",
>                 INIT_FANOTIFY_MARK_TYPE(FILESYSTEM),
> -               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 2,
> +               FAN_OPEN_PERM | FAN_ACCESS_PERM, 3,
>                 {
>                         {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_ALLOW},
> -                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY}
> +                       {FAN_ACCESS_PERM, FAN_DENY},
> +                       {FAN_OPEN_PERM, FAN_DENY}
>                 }
>         }
>  };
> @@ -89,9 +93,10 @@ static struct tcase {
>  static void generate_events(void)
>  {
>         int fd;
> +       char *const argv[] = {TEST_APP, NULL};
>
>         /*
> -        * generate sequence of events
> +        * Generate sequence of events
>          */
>         if ((fd = open(fname, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0700)) == -1)
>                 exit(1);
> @@ -104,6 +109,9 @@ static void generate_events(void)
>
>         if (close(fd) == -1)
>                 exit(4);
> +
> +       if (execve(TEST_APP, argv, environ) != -1)
> +               exit(5);
>  }
>

I am a bit puzzled.
Did you test this point in the series?

If child is denied read access then it exits before execve(), so you
shouldn't be adding an extra OPEN event in event_set of exiting
test cases, which DENY ACCESS??

Thanks,
Amir.