[LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] syscalls/statfs: Accept segfault instead of EFAULT

[Cyril Hrubis]

>  int main(int ac, char **av)
>  {
>  	int lc;
> @@ -67,23 +73,20 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>  		tst_count = 0;
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < TST_TOTAL; i++) {
> +			sig_caught = 0;
> +			if (sigsetjmp(env, 1) == 0)
> +				fstatfs_verify(&TC[i]);
>  
> -			TEST(fstatfs(TC[i].fd, TC[i].sbuf));
> +			if (!sig_caught)
> +				continue;
>  
> -			if (TEST_RETURN != -1) {
> -				tst_resm(TFAIL, "call succeeded unexpectedly");
> +			if (TC[i].error == EFAULT && sig_caught == SIGSEGV) {
> +				tst_resm(TINFO, "received SIGSEGV instead of returning EFAULT");
> +				tst_resm(TPASS | TTERRNO, "expected failure");

This can be just a signle message tst_resm(TPASS | TERRNO, "Got SIGSEGV intead of EFAULT");

>  				continue;
>  			}
>  
> -			if (TEST_ERRNO == TC[i].error) {
> -				tst_resm(TPASS, "expected failure - "
> -					 "errno = %d : %s", TEST_ERRNO,
> -					 strerror(TEST_ERRNO));
> -			} else {
> -				tst_resm(TFAIL, "unexpected error - %d : %s - "
> -					 "expected %d", TEST_ERRNO,
> -					 strerror(TEST_ERRNO), TC[i].error);
> -			}
> +			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Received an unexpected signal: %d", sig_caught);
>  		}
>  	}
>  	cleanup();
> @@ -91,9 +94,16 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>  	tst_exit();
>  }
>  
> +static void sighandler(int sig)
> +{
> +	sig_caught = sig;
> +	siglongjmp(env, 1);
> +
> +}
> +
>  static void setup(void)
>  {
> -	tst_sig(NOFORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
> +	tst_sig(NOFORK, sighandler, cleanup);

Can we just setup handler for the SIGSEGV signal and keep everything
else for the DEF_HANDLER?

>  	TEST_PAUSE;
>  
> @@ -103,6 +113,24 @@ static void setup(void)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> +static void fstatfs_verify(const struct test_case_t *test)
> +{
> +	TEST(fstatfs(test->fd, test->sbuf));
> +
> +	if (TEST_RETURN != -1) {
> +		tst_resm(TFAIL, "call succeeded unexpectedly");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (TEST_ERRNO == test->error) {
> +		tst_resm(TPASS, "expected failure - errno = %d : %s",
> +			 TEST_ERRNO, strerror(TEST_ERRNO));
> +	} else {
> +		tst_resm(TFAIL, "unexpected error - %d : %s - expected %d",
> +			 TEST_ERRNO, strerror(TEST_ERRNO), test->error);
> +	}
> +}

If we converted the test to the new test API this would be a single line as:

	TST_EXP_FAIL(fstatfs(test->fd, test->sbuf), test->error, "fstatfs()");

Generally with the new test api the code would be much shorter...

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz