[LTP] [PATCH v3 2/3] syscalls/pipe2_02: Add new test for pipe2 O_CLOEXEC flag

[Li Wang]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:29 PM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  runtest/syscalls                              |  1 +
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/.gitignore    |  2 +
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02.c    | 69 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02_child.c    | 26 +++++++
>  4 files changed, 98 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02.c
>  create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02_child.c
>
> diff --git a/runtest/syscalls b/runtest/syscalls
> index 79b671d50..44254d7da 100644
> --- a/runtest/syscalls
> +++ b/runtest/syscalls
> @@ -911,6 +911,7 @@ pipe12 pipe12
>  pipe13 pipe13
>
>  pipe2_01 pipe2_01
> +pipe2_02 pipe2_02
>
>  pivot_root01 pivot_root01
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/.gitignore
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/.gitignore
> index 42350bbdc..786222de2 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/.gitignore
> @@ -1 +1,3 @@
>  /pipe2_01
> +/pipe2_02
> +/pipe2_02_child
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..743d78c58
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 FUJITSU LIMITED. All rights reserved.
> + * Author: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> + *
> + * This case is designed to test the basic functionality about the
> + * O_CLOEXEC flag of pipe2.
> + */
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include "lapi/fcntl.h"
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +
> +#define TESTBIN "pipe2_02_child"
> +static int fds[2];
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> +       if (fds[0] > 0)
> +               SAFE_CLOSE(fds[0]);
> +       if (fds[1] > 0)
> +               SAFE_CLOSE(fds[1]);
> +}
> +
> +static void verify_pipe2(void)
> +{
> +       int pid, status;
> +       char buf[20];
> +
> +       SAFE_PIPE2(fds, O_CLOEXEC);
> +       sprintf(buf, "%d", fds[1]);
> +       pid = SAFE_FORK();
> +       if (pid == 0) {
> +               if (execlp(TESTBIN, TESTBIN, buf, NULL))
> +                       exit(2);
>

Do we really need the if() condition and exit(2)? AFAIK, the exec() family
of functions replaces the current process image with a new process and
returns zero if succeeded.


> +       }
> +
> +       SAFE_WAIT(&status);
> +       if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
> +               switch (WEXITSTATUS(status)) {
> +               case 0:
> +                       tst_res(TPASS, "test O_CLOEXEC for pipe2 success");
> +               break;
> +               case 1:
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "test O_CLOEXEC for pipe2 failed");
> +               break;
> +               default:
> +                       tst_brk(TBROK, "execlp() failed");
> +               }
> +       } else {
> +               tst_brk(TBROK, "%s exits with unexpected error", TESTBIN);
> +       }
> +       cleanup();
> +}
> +
> +static const char *const resfile[] = {
> +       TESTBIN,
> +       NULL,
> +};
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +       .resource_files = resfile,
> +       .cleanup = cleanup,
> +       .forks_child = 1,
> +       .needs_root = 1,
> +       .test_all = verify_pipe2,
> +};
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02_child.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02_child.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..d5ed68cf7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pipe2/pipe2_02_child.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 FUJITSU LIMITED. All rights reserved.
> + * Author: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com
> + */
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +
> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> +{
> +       int ret;
> +       int fd;
> +
> +       if (argc != 2) {
> +               fprintf(stderr, "Only two arguments: %s <fd>\n", argv[0]);
> +               exit(1);
> +       }
> +
> +       fd = atoi(argv[1]);
> +       ret = write(fd, "x", 1);
> +
> +       return ret != -1;


To check if the return value equals -1 maybe not a good idea to confirm the
'fd' is closed. That only proof it failed to write "x" to the fd, we are
not sure if that exists other errors.

What about using the fcntl() in the fd status check?

    if (fcntl(fd, F_GETFL) < 0 && errno == EBADF)
            return 0;

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20200421/7ffc5ae2/attachment.htm>