[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] Use SAFE_RUNCMD()

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li, Xu,

> >       testcases/kernel/syscalls/add_key/add_key05.c   | 15 ++-------------
> >       testcases/kernel/syscalls/quotactl/quotactl01.c | 14 ++------------
> >       testcases/kernel/syscalls/quotactl/quotactl06.c | 12 +-----------

> > Apart from the three, do you consider converting to SAFE_RUNCMD for the
> > rest testcases?
> > (it seems not too much work remaining since only a few test case uses
> > tst_run_cmd)
> At the beginning, I have the same idea. But after seeing code, I think we
> should not because these cases have many sub tests(only few test deponds on
> the result of the cmd execution.

> > kernel/syscalls/setpriority/setpriority01.c
> One year ago has a commit db82b596(setpriority01: Skip only PRIO_USER when
> unable to add test user). It only affects PRIO_USER sub test.
+ 1. I didn't want to break the case when useradd is not available (android or
some custom embedded linux) or there is no password file (root mounted as ro -
custom embedded linux).

BTW I also avoid handling adding user as I want to implement better handling
user and group in LTP (adding a flag), see:
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/468

Feel free to commend this plan.
This patchset is kind of preparation for it.

> > kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
> only affect test6 and test7
>  6) Try to copy contents to a file chattred with +i
>  *    flag -> EPERM
>  * 7) Try to copy contents to a swapfile ->ETXTBSY
Yes, it'd be bad to break all tests due it.

Here is also problem with swapoff (or maybe chattr, mkswap, swapon; I don't
remember), which returns exit code 255 on error, so it's not possible to
distinguish this from the case whether command is not available (any idea, how
to fix it?).

Looking into old API uses, testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapon/libswapon.c could
use it (once it migrates to new API), although it uses tst_brkm(TFAIL).
testcases/kernel/input/input_helper.c probably not.

Kind regards,
Petr