[LTP] [PATCH v1] Refactor fork12 using new LTP API

[Andrea Cervesato]

Hi!

On 11/1/23 09:11, Richard Palethorpe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:
>
>> Hi!
>>> This test also randomly fails outside of a container. Also other tests
>>> that are testing the limits. This makes me think more that setting lower
>>> prlimits is needed. Also this rewrite gets higher priority.
>> Just note that this test is not in syscalls runtest file but in the
>> crashme runtest file, which contains highly questionable stuff.
>>
>> I guess that the original test does not really take things like
>> overcommit and OMM into an account, so shifting the test goals by
>> setting the RLIMIT_NPROC so that we effectively check that the
>> limits are enforced is probably reasonable way how to fix the test.
>> Either we do that or we remove fork12.c.
> Looking at the setrlimit tests we already do this in setrlimit01 as
> well.
>
> I guess someone might want to test a fork bomb. However I don't see how
> it could be a reliable or meaningful test unless you set reasonable
> limits for the particular system that the test is running on.
>
> Just a thought; IMO stress tests are better handled by a tool like
> stress-ng and some bespoke scripts for a particular system. Or else we
> have to create a framework inside LTP for deciding on and implementing
> reasonable limits.
>
>
I agree with Richard. We can just remove fork12 and use setrlimit01 
instead (test that needs to be refactoring anyway).

Andrea Cervesato