[LTP] [PATCH v3 1/1] setgroups03: Fix running more iterations (-i 2)

[zhaogongyi]

Hi,

For the testcase setgroup3:

	* Test Description:
 	*  Verify that,
 	*   1. setgroups() fails with -1 and sets errno to EINVAL if the size
 	*      argument value is > NGROUPS
 	*   2. setgroups() fails with -1 and sets errno to EPERM if the
 	*      calling process is not super-user.

At the first checkpoint, set errno to EINVAL if the size argument value is > NGROUPS, it seems that has no matter with the value of group_list. Meticulously, we can set group_list to a normal value.

Same situation for the second checkpoint.

So can we reserve the group_list that set a normal value?


Thanks so much!


> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, in this testcase, the groups_list is redundant and can be removed.
> 
> I am sorry for my late reply.
> 
> Thanks so much!
> 
> 
> 
> > > > -int setup1(void)
> > > > +void setup1(const char *uid, uid_t euid)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	struct passwd *user_info;	/* struct. to hold test user info */
> > > > -
> > > > -/* Switch to nobody user for correct error code collection */
> > > > -	ltpuser = getpwnam(nobody_uid);
> > > > -	if (seteuid(ltpuser->pw_uid) == -1) {
> > > > -		tst_resm(TINFO, "setreuid failed to "
> > > > -			 "to set the effective uid to %d", ltpuser->pw_uid);
> > > > -		perror("setreuid");
> > > > -	}
> > > > +	struct passwd *user_info;
> >
> > > > -	if ((user_info = getpwnam(TESTUSER)) == NULL) {
> > > > -		tst_brkm(TFAIL, cleanup, "getpwnam(2) of %s Failed",
> > TESTUSER);
> > > > -	}
> > > > +	SAFE_SETEUID(cleanup, euid);
> > > > +
> > > > +	user_info = SAFE_GETPWNAM(cleanup, uid);
> >
> > > I still do not get why we call SAFE_GETPWNAM() here. We should do
> > > that in the setup and prepare two different group_list[] lists, if
> > > that is really needed.
> >
> > > But I guess that all we need in this test is:
> >
> > > * Run the EINVAL test as a root
> >
> > > * Run the EPERM test as a nobody
> >
> > > The content of the list should not matter, as a matter of a fact we
> > > pass unitialized data in the EINVAL case. What matters is the size
> > > argument, it should be 1 for the EPERM test and max+1 for the EINVAL
> > case.
> >
> > Good point, thank you!
> >
> > @Zhao feel free to let me know you're doing to implement it.
> > Otherwise I'll have look on Monday.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> >
> > > >  	if (!GID_SIZE_CHECK(user_info->pw_gid)) {
> > > >  		tst_brkm(TBROK,
> > > >  			 cleanup,
> > > >  			 "gid returned from getpwnam is too large for testing
> > setgroups16");
> > > >  	}
> > > > +
> > > >  	groups_list[0] = user_info->pw_gid;
> > > > -	return 0;
> > > >  }
> >
> > > >  /*
> > > > --
> > > > 2.33.0