dup07.c: Rewrite using new LTP API

Signed-off-by: Avinesh Kumar <akumar@suse.de>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c | 180 +++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)

Hi Avinesh

I did't look this cleanup patch, but I see the old code is same as 
dup202.c(This case covers more situation, ie using chmod). Maybe we can 
just add a test_variant to use dup  syscall in dup202.c?

Then remove this case directly.

Best Regards
Yang Xu
> Signed-off-by: Avinesh Kumar<akumar@suse.de>
> ---
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c | 180 +++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c
> index a100f5d58..b696d54e0 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/dup/dup07.c
> @@ -1,142 +1,80 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>   /*
> - *
>    *   Copyright (c) International Business Machines  Corp., 2002
>    *    ported from SPIE, section2/iosuite/dup3.c, by Airong Zhang
>    *   Copyright (c) 2013 Cyril Hrubis<chrubis@suse.cz>
> - *
> - *   This program is free software;  you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> - *   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> - *   (at your option) any later version.
> - *
> - *   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> - *   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the implied warranty of
> - *   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See
> - *   the GNU General Public License for more details.
> - *
> - *   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> - *   along with this program;  if not, write to the Free Software
> - *   Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
> + *   Copyright (c) 2022SUSE LLC Avinesh Kumar<avinesh.kumar@suse.com>
>    */
>
> -/*
> -  WHAT:  Is the access mode the same for both file descriptors?
> -          0: read only?
> -          1: write only?
> -          2: read/write?
> -  HOW:   Creat a file with each access mode; dup each file descriptor;
> -         stat each file descriptor and compare mode of each pair
> -*/
> -
> -#include<stdio.h>
> -#include<fcntl.h>
> -#include<sys/types.h>
> -#include<sys/stat.h>
> -#include<sys/types.h>
> -#include<sys/stat.h>
> -#include "test.h"
> +/*\
> + * [Description]
> + *
> + * Verify that new file descriptor allocated by dup() has the same
> + * permissions mode as oldfd.
> + */
>
> -char *TCID = "dup07";
> -int TST_TOTAL = 3;
> +#include "tst_test.h"
>
> -static const char *testfile = "dup07";
> +static const char *temp_file1 = "tmpfile1";
> +static const char *temp_file2 = "tmpfile2";
> +static const char *temp_file3 = "tmpfile3";
>
> -static void setup(void);
> -static void cleanup(void);
> +static int rdo_fd, wro_fd, rdwr_fd;
> +static struct stat rdo_st_buf, wro_st_buf, rdwr_st_buf;
>
> -int main(int ac, char **av)
> +static void setup(void)
>   {
> -	struct stat retbuf;
> -	struct stat dupbuf;
> -	int rdoret, wroret, rdwret;
> -	int duprdo, dupwro, duprdwr;
> -
> -	int lc;
> -
> -	tst_parse_opts(ac, av, NULL, NULL);
> -
> -	setup();
> +	rdo_fd = SAFE_CREAT(temp_file1, 0444);
> +	wro_fd = SAFE_CREAT(temp_file2, 0222);
> +	rdwr_fd = SAFE_CREAT(temp_file3, 0666);
>
> -	for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
> -
> -		if ((rdoret = creat(testfile, 0444)) == -1) {
> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to creat file '%s'", testfile);
> -		} else {
> -			if ((duprdo = dup(rdoret)) == -1) {
> -				tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to dup '%s'", testfile);
> -			} else {
> -				fstat(rdoret,&retbuf);
> -				fstat(duprdo,&dupbuf);
> -				if (retbuf.st_mode != dupbuf.st_mode) {
> -					tst_resm(TFAIL,
> -						 "rdonly and dup do not match");
> -				} else {
> -					tst_resm(TPASS,
> -					         "Passed in read mode.");
> -				}
> -				close(duprdo);
> -			}
> -			close(rdoret);
> -		}
> -
> -		unlink(testfile);
> -		
> -		if ((wroret = creat(testfile, 0222)) == -1) {
> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to creat file '%s'", testfile);
> -		} else {
> -			if ((dupwro = dup(wroret)) == -1) {
> -				tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to dup '%s'", testfile);
> -			} else {
> -				fstat(wroret,&retbuf);
> -				fstat(dupwro,&dupbuf);
> -				if (retbuf.st_mode != dupbuf.st_mode) {
> -					tst_resm(TFAIL,
> -						 "wronly and dup do not match");
> -				} else {
> -					tst_resm(TPASS,
> -					         "Passed in write mode.");
> -				}
> -				close(dupwro);
> -			}
> -			close(wroret);
> -
> -		}
> -
> -		unlink(testfile);
> +	SAFE_FSTAT(rdo_fd,&rdo_st_buf);
> +	SAFE_FSTAT(wro_fd,&wro_st_buf);
> +	SAFE_FSTAT(rdwr_fd,&rdwr_st_buf);
> +}
>
> -		if ((rdwret = creat(testfile, 0666)) == -1) {
> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to creat file '%s'", testfile);
> -		} else {
> -			if ((duprdwr = dup(rdwret)) == -1) {
> -				tst_resm(TFAIL, "Unable to dup '%s'", testfile);
> -			} else {
> -				fstat(rdwret,&retbuf);
> -				fstat(duprdwr,&dupbuf);
> -				if (retbuf.st_mode != dupbuf.st_mode) {
> -					tst_resm(TFAIL,
> -						 "rdwr and dup do not match");
> -				} else {
> -					tst_resm(TPASS,
> -					         "Passed in read/write mode.");
> -				}
> -				close(duprdwr);
> -			}
> -			close(rdwret);
> -		}
> -		
> -		unlink(testfile);
> +static void run(void)
> +{
> +	struct stat dup_st_buf;
> +
> +	TEST(dup(rdo_fd));
> +	if (TST_RET == -1)
> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Unable to dup '%s'", temp_file1);
> +	else {
> +		SAFE_FSTAT(TST_RET,&dup_st_buf);
> +		TST_EXP_EQ_LI(rdo_st_buf.st_mode, dup_st_buf.st_mode);
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(TST_RET);
>   	}
>
> -	cleanup();
> -	tst_exit();
> -}
> +	TEST(dup(wro_fd));
> +	if (TST_RET == -1)
> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Unable to dup '%s'", temp_file2);
> +	else {
> +		SAFE_FSTAT(TST_RET,&dup_st_buf);
> +		TST_EXP_EQ_LI(wro_st_buf.st_mode, dup_st_buf.st_mode);
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(TST_RET);
> +	}
>
> -static void setup(void)
> -{
> -	tst_tmpdir();
> +	TEST(dup(rdwr_fd));
> +	if (TST_RET == -1)
> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Unable to dup '%s'", temp_file3);
> +	else {
> +		SAFE_FSTAT(TST_RET,&dup_st_buf);
> +		TST_EXP_EQ_LI(rdwr_st_buf.st_mode, dup_st_buf.st_mode);
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(TST_RET);
> +	}
>   }
>
>   static void cleanup(void)
>   {
> -	tst_rmdir();
> +	SAFE_CLOSE(rdo_fd);
> +	SAFE_CLOSE(wro_fd);
> +	SAFE_CLOSE(rdwr_fd);
>   }
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +	.test_all = run,
> +	.setup = setup,
> +	.cleanup = cleanup,
> +	.needs_tmpdir = 1
> +};

Hi Avinesh, Xu,

> Hi Avinesh

> I did't look this cleanup patch, but I see the old code is same as 
> dup202.c(This case covers more situation, ie using chmod). Maybe we can 
> just add a test_variant to use dup  syscall in dup202.c?

> Then remove this case directly.

+1, yes, the code in both tests indeed does the same.

Kind regards,
Petr