From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:10:24 +0000
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 3/4] syscalls/shmget05: Add test for
 /proc/sys/kernel/shm_next_id
In-Reply-To: <YPlb+ogqehyG210l@yuki>
References: <1620809541-6891-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
 <1620809541-6891-3-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
 <YPlb+ogqehyG210l@yuki>
Message-ID: <60FA8799.6050900@fujitsu.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi Cyril
> Hi!
> First of all, sorry for the late response.
>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..601609648
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget05.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2021 FUJITSU LIMITED. All rights reserved.
>> + * Author: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +/*\
>> + * [Description]
>> + *
>> + * It is a basic test about shm_next_id.
>                             ^
> 			   for
>> + *
>> + * shm_next_id specifies desired id for next allocated IPC shared memory. By
>> + * default they are equal to -1, which means generic allocation logic.
>                ^
> 	      it's instead of 'they are'
>> + * Possible values to set are in range {0..INT_MAX}.
>> + * Toggle with non-default value will be set back to -1 by kernel after
>
> This would probably be better with just: "The value will be set back ..."
>
>> + * successful IPC object allocation.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include<errno.h>
>> +#include<string.h>
>> +#include<sys/types.h>
>> +#include<sys/ipc.h>
>> +#include<sys/shm.h>
>> +#include "tst_test.h"
>> +#include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
>> +#include "libnewipc.h"
>> +
>> +#define NEXT_ID_PATH "/proc/sys/kernel/shm_next_id"
>> +static int shm_id, pid;
>> +static key_t shmkey;
>> +
>> +static void verify_shmget(void)
>> +{
>> +	SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(NEXT_ID_PATH, "%d", pid);
>> +
>> +	shm_id = SAFE_SHMGET(shmkey, SHM_SIZE, SHM_RW | IPC_CREAT);
>> +	if (shm_id == pid)
>> +		tst_res(TPASS, "shm_next_id succeeded, shm id %d", pid);
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "shm_next_id failed, expected id %d, but got %d", pid, shm_id);
>> +
>> +	TST_ASSERT_INT(NEXT_ID_PATH, -1);
>> +	SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_RMID, NULL);
>> +	pid++;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void setup(void)
>> +{
>> +	shmkey = GETIPCKEY();
>> +	pid = getpid();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void cleanup(void)
>> +{
>> +	if (shm_id != -1)
>> +		SAFE_SHMCTL(shm_id, IPC_RMID, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct tst_test test = {
>> +	.needs_tmpdir = 1,
>
> I guess that we want this for the GETIPCKEY() right?
>
Yes.
>> +	.setup = setup,
>> +	.cleanup = cleanup,
>> +	.test_all = verify_shmget,
>> +	.needs_kconfigs = (const char *[]) {
>> +		"CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y",
>> +		NULL
>> +	},
>> +	.needs_root = 1,
>> +};
>
> Looks good.
>
> With the minor adjustements in the test description:
>
> Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis<chrubis@suse.cz>
Thanks for your review. Will send v2.
>