[LTP] [PATCH 2/4] syscalls/kill03, 04: Cleanup && Convert to new library

[Yang Xu]

Hi Li


> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:18 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com 
> <mailto:xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Li
> 
> 
>      >
>      > Feiyu Zhu <zhufy.jy@cn.fujitsu.com
>     <mailto:zhufy.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <mailto:zhufy.jy@cn.fujitsu.com
>     <mailto:zhufy.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     ...
>      >     +#include <unistd.h>
>      >     +#include "tst_test.h"
>      >     +
>      >     +static pid_t real_pid, fake_pid, int_min_pid;
>      >     +static void cleanup(void);
>      >     +
>      >     +static struct tcase {
>      >     +       int test_sig;
>      >     +       int exp_errno;
>      >     +       int child_flag;
>      >
>      >
>      > The child_flag field is not necessary, we could prepare a real
>     child in
>      > setup()
>      > and reclaim it after testing via check the real_pid value, that
>     will be
>      > more easily.
>     When I reviewed this patch in internal, I had the same idea. But when I
>     try it and this case will hang because sub test will wait children
>     finished by using tst_reap_childrens below:
> 
>     lib/tst_test.c
>     static void run_tests(void)
>     {
>              ...
>               for (i = 0; i < tst_test->tcnt; i++) {
>                       saved_results = *results;
>                       tst_test->test(i);
> 
>                       if (getpid() != main_pid) {
>                               exit(0);
>                       }
> 
>                       tst_reap_children();
> 
>                       if (results_equal(&saved_results, results))
>                               tst_brk(TBROK, "Test %i haven't reported
>     results!", i);
>               }
> 
> 
>     }
> 
>     Also, we can use the current process id but it may has unexpected
>     result
>     when kill succeed. So fork a child to test maybe a better solution.
> 
> 
> Hmm, sorry for the uncleared description, actually I meant, to use real_pid
> instead of the tc->child_flag directly, then start to reclaim the child 
> when the
> real_pid test finishing.
> 
> Does this below diff work for you?
It looks well. But the real_pid only valid when the first sub test and 
the real pid is equals to 0 when using -i parameters because we have 
killed this children.

For pid = 0, it means  then sig is sent to every process in the process 
group of the calling process.  So it looks like we test different thing 
when using -i parameters.  What do you think about this?
> 
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill03.c
> @@ -21,24 +21,17 @@ static void cleanup(void);
>   static struct tcase {
>          int test_sig;
>          int exp_errno;
> -       int child_flag;
>          pid_t *pid;
>   } tcases[] = {
> -       {2000, EINVAL, 1, &real_pid},
> -       {SIGKILL, ESRCH, 0, &fake_pid},
> -       {SIGKILL, ESRCH, 0, &int_min_pid}
> +       {2000, EINVAL, &real_pid},
> +       {SIGKILL, ESRCH, &fake_pid},
> +       {SIGKILL, ESRCH, &int_min_pid}
>   };
> 
>   static void verify_kill(unsigned int n)
>   {
>          struct tcase *tc = &tcases[n];
> 
> -       if (tc->child_flag) {
> -               real_pid = SAFE_FORK();
> -               if (!real_pid)
> -                       pause();
> -       }
> -
>          TEST(kill(*tc->pid, tc->test_sig));
>          if (TST_RET != -1) {
>                  tst_res(TFAIL, "kill should fail but not, return %ld", 
> TST_RET);
> @@ -51,14 +44,19 @@ static void verify_kill(unsigned int n)
>                  tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "kill expected %s but got",
>                          tst_strerrno(tc->exp_errno));
> 
> -       if (tc->child_flag) {
> +       if (real_pid) {
>                  cleanup();
>                  real_pid = 0;
>          }
> +
>   }
> 
>   static void setup(void)
>   {
> +       real_pid = SAFE_FORK();
> +       if (!real_pid)
> +               pause();
> +
>          fake_pid = tst_get_unused_pid();
>          int_min_pid = INT_MIN;
>   }
> -- 
> Regards,
> Li Wang