[7/9] syscalls/ipc: Add shmctl07 test

A new test for SHM_LOCK and SHM_UNLOCK.

Signed-off-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
---
 runtest/syscalls                              |  1 +
 runtest/syscalls-ipc                          |  1 +
 .../kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/.gitignore     |  1 +
 .../kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c     | 66 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:35 AM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

> ...
> +
> +static void verify_shmlock(void)
> +{
> +       struct shmid_ds ds;
> +
> +       TEST(shmctl(shm_id, SHM_LOCK, NULL));
> +
> +       if (TST_RET != 0)
> +               tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "shmctl(%i, SHM_LOCK, NULL)",
> shm_id);
> +       else
> +               tst_res(TPASS, "shmctl(%i, SHM_LOCK, NULL)", shm_id);
> +
> +
> +       SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_STAT, &ds);
> +
> +       if (ds.shm_perm.mode & SHM_LOCKED)
> +               tst_res(TPASS, "SMH_LOCKED bit is on in shm_perm.mode");
> +       else
> +               tst_res(TFAIL, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
> +
> +       TEST(shmctl(shm_id, SHM_UNLOCK, NULL));
> +
> +       if (TST_RET != 0)
> +               tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "shmctl(%i, SHM_UNLOCK, NULL)",
> shm_id);
> +       else
> +               tst_res(TPASS, "shmctl(%i, SHM_UNLOCK, NULL)", shm_id);
> +
>

Shouldn't we do update 'ds' before checking the ds.shm_perm.mode?

--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c
@@ -42,10 +42,11 @@ static void verify_shmlock(void)
        else
                tst_res(TPASS, "shmctl(%i, SHM_UNLOCK, NULL)", shm_id);

+       SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_STAT, &ds);
        if (ds.shm_perm.mode & SHM_LOCKED)
-               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
-       else
                tst_res(TFAIL, "SMH_LOCKED bit is on in shm_perm.mode");
+       else
+               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
 }



> +       if (ds.shm_perm.mode & SHM_LOCKED)
> +               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
>

And in this branch, the status should be "on" but not "off".



> +       else
> +               tst_res(TFAIL, "SMH_LOCKED bit is on in shm_perm.mode");
> +}
> +
> +static void setup(void)
> +{
> +       shm_id = SAFE_SHMGET(IPC_PRIVATE, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | SHM_RW);
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> +       if (shm_id >= 0)
> +               SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_RMID, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +       .setup = setup,
> +       .cleanup = cleanup,
> +       .test_all = verify_shmlock,
> +};
> --
> 2.26.2
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>
>

Hi!
> Shouldn't we do update 'ds' before checking the ds.shm_perm.mode?
> 
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmctl/shmctl07.c
> @@ -42,10 +42,11 @@ static void verify_shmlock(void)
>         else
>                 tst_res(TPASS, "shmctl(%i, SHM_UNLOCK, NULL)", shm_id);
> 
> +       SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_STAT, &ds);
>         if (ds.shm_perm.mode & SHM_LOCKED)
> -               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
> -       else
>                 tst_res(TFAIL, "SMH_LOCKED bit is on in shm_perm.mode");
> +       else
> +               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
>  }
> 
> 
> 
> > +       if (ds.shm_perm.mode & SHM_LOCKED)
> > +               tst_res(TPASS, "SHM_LOCKED bit is off in shm_perm.mode");
> >
> 
> And in this branch, the status should be "on" but not "off".

And also TFAIL.

All will be fixed in v2, thx for the review.