[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/openat2: New tests

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-02-20, 14:22, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> > +static void run(unsigned int n)
> > +{
> > +	int fd;
> > +	struct stat file_stat;
> > +	struct tcase *tc = &tcases[n];
> > +	struct open_how how = {
> > +		.flags = tc->flags | O_CREAT,
> > +		.mode = tc->mode,
> > +		.resolve = tc->resolve
> > +	};
> 
> This structure should be allocated tst_buffers, see capget01.c for
> example.

This changed few things.

I am getting a build warning now (same happen if I build bpf stuff as
well). I don't understand why this warning comes though.

openat202.c:69:1: warning: missing initializer for field 'caps' of 'struct tst_test' [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
 };
 ^
In file included from openat202.c:7:0:
../../../../include/tst_test.h:236:18: note: 'caps' declared here
  struct tst_cap *caps;
                  ^~~~


Also for the failure test where larger size was passed, the error
reported now is EFAULT as kernel can't access out of bound dynamically
allocated memory (instead of stack one earlier). In order to get
E2BIG, I need to add some hacks (allocate more memory and write
non-zero value to excess memory) and I don't think that would be worth
it, so my test will expect EFAULT now.

> > +	TEST(fd = openat2(*tc->dfd, tc->pathname, &how, sizeof(how)));
> > +	if (fd == -1) {
> > +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "openat2() failed (%d)", n);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	SAFE_FSTAT(fd, &file_stat);
> > +
> > +	if (file_stat.st_size == 0)
> > +		tst_res(TPASS, "openat2() passed (%d)", n);
> > +	else
> > +		tst_res(TFAIL, "fstat() didn't work as expected (%d)", n);
> 
> So this is very basic test that just checks that openat() can open a
> file and we would need a few more for each of the newly introduced
> RESOLVE_* flags.

Hmm, this file is already testing openat2() with all different type of
resolve flags. What kind of further tests are you suggesting here ?

> > +	{AT_FDCWD, TEST_FILE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, S_IRWXU, 0, 2 * sizeof(struct open_how), E2BIG},
>                                                              ^
> 							     What
> 							     happends if
> 							     we pass
> 							     size
> 							     smaller
> 							     than the
> 							     sizeof(struct open_how) ?
> 
> Do we get EINVAL just like for 0?

Yes, added a test for that as well.

-- 
viresh