* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
@ 2020-02-12 5:44 Yang Xu
2020-02-12 6:11 ` Xiao Yang
2020-02-12 13:32 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-02-12 5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Currently, running this case will report EINVAL error if I run "ulimit -c
1023" command firstly. From setrlimit(2)manpage, it got EINVAL error because
rlim->rlim_cur was greater than rlim->rlim_max. So add a check for it before
setrlimit.
Reported-by: Pankaj Vinadrao Joshi <Pankaj.VJ@exaleapsemi.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
index 83fba5beb..5f70b0a07 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
@@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ void setup(void)
SAFE_GETRLIMIT(NULL, RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim);
+ if (rlim.rlim_max < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE)
+ tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
+ rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
if (rlim.rlim_cur < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE) {
tst_resm(TINFO, "Adjusting RLIMIT_CORE to %i", MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
rlim.rlim_cur = MIN_RLIMIT_CORE;
--
2.18.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-12 5:44 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE Yang Xu
@ 2020-02-12 6:11 ` Xiao Yang
2020-02-12 6:41 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-12 13:32 ` Jan Stancek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Xiao Yang @ 2020-02-12 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On 2020/2/12 13:44, Yang Xu wrote:
> Currently, running this case will report EINVAL error if I run "ulimit -c
> 1023" command firstly. From setrlimit(2)manpage, it got EINVAL error because
> rlim->rlim_cur was greater than rlim->rlim_max. So add a check for it before
> setrlimit.
Hi Xu,
It seems better to fix the issue by setting both rlim_cur and rlimit_max
to the MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
Thanks,
Xiao Yang
> Reported-by: Pankaj Vinadrao Joshi<Pankaj.VJ@exaleapsemi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> index 83fba5beb..5f70b0a07 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ void setup(void)
>
> SAFE_GETRLIMIT(NULL, RLIMIT_CORE,&rlim);
>
> + if (rlim.rlim_max< MIN_RLIMIT_CORE)
> + tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
> + rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
> if (rlim.rlim_cur< MIN_RLIMIT_CORE) {
> tst_resm(TINFO, "Adjusting RLIMIT_CORE to %i", MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
> rlim.rlim_cur = MIN_RLIMIT_CORE;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-12 6:11 ` Xiao Yang
@ 2020-02-12 6:41 ` Yang Xu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-02-12 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
on 2020/02/12 14:11, Xiao Yang wrote:
> On 2020/2/12 13:44, Yang Xu wrote:
>> Currently, running this case will report EINVAL error if I run "ulimit -c
>> 1023" command firstly. From setrlimit(2)manpage, it got EINVAL error
>> because
>> rlim->rlim_cur was greater than rlim->rlim_max. So add a check for it
>> before
>> setrlimit.
> Hi Xu,
>
> It seems better to fix the issue by setting both rlim_cur and rlimit_max
> to the MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
> We can not raise rlim_max value under unprivileged user. Or, should I
cleanup this case and use needs_root=1 ?
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> Thanks,
> Xiao Yang
>> Reported-by: Pankaj Vinadrao Joshi<Pankaj.VJ@exaleapsemi.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> ? testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c | 3 +++
>> ? 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> index 83fba5beb..5f70b0a07 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ void setup(void)
>>
>> ????? SAFE_GETRLIMIT(NULL, RLIMIT_CORE,&rlim);
>>
>> +??? if (rlim.rlim_max<? MIN_RLIMIT_CORE)
>> +??????? tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than
>> MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
>> +??????????????? rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
>> ????? if (rlim.rlim_cur<? MIN_RLIMIT_CORE) {
>> ????????? tst_resm(TINFO, "Adjusting RLIMIT_CORE to %i",
>> MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
>> ????????? rlim.rlim_cur = MIN_RLIMIT_CORE;
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-12 5:44 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE Yang Xu
2020-02-12 6:11 ` Xiao Yang
@ 2020-02-12 13:32 ` Jan Stancek
2020-02-13 1:43 ` Yang Xu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2020-02-12 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> Currently, running this case will report EINVAL error if I run "ulimit -c
> 1023" command firstly. From setrlimit(2)manpage, it got EINVAL error because
> rlim->rlim_cur was greater than rlim->rlim_max. So add a check for it before
> setrlimit.
>
> Reported-by: Pankaj Vinadrao Joshi <Pankaj.VJ@exaleapsemi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> index 83fba5beb..5f70b0a07 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ void setup(void)
>
> SAFE_GETRLIMIT(NULL, RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim);
>
> + if (rlim.rlim_max < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE)
> + tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
> + rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible?
+ if (rlim.rlim_max < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE) {
+ if (geteuid() != 0) {
+ tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
+ rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
+ }
+ tst_resm(TINFO, "Raising rlim_max to %i", MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
+ rlim.rlim_max = MIN_RLIMIT_CORE;
+ }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-12 13:32 ` Jan Stancek
@ 2020-02-13 1:43 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-13 8:35 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-02-13 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
on 2020/02/12 21:32, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Currently, running this case will report EINVAL error if I run "ulimit -c
>> 1023" command firstly. From setrlimit(2)manpage, it got EINVAL error because
>> rlim->rlim_cur was greater than rlim->rlim_max. So add a check for it before
>> setrlimit.
>>
>> Reported-by: Pankaj Vinadrao Joshi <Pankaj.VJ@exaleapsemi.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> index 83fba5beb..5f70b0a07 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill11.c
>> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ void setup(void)
>>
>> SAFE_GETRLIMIT(NULL, RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim);
>>
>> + if (rlim.rlim_max < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE)
>> + tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
>> + rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
>
> This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible?
>
Of course. Your way is more wise.
But I also want to change this size of MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
From ulimit manpage, I know in posix mode "-c" used 512-byte block. I
doubt whether we can change MIN_RLIMIT_CORE(512 *1024), so this case
can also pass in unbuntu(default environment).
What do you think about this?
ps: I tested it on el7,el8, they all pass.
>
> + if (rlim.rlim_max < MIN_RLIMIT_CORE) {
> + if (geteuid() != 0) {
> + tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "hard limit(%lu)less than MIN_RLIMT_CORE(%i)",
> + rlim.rlim_max, MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
> + }
> + tst_resm(TINFO, "Raising rlim_max to %i", MIN_RLIMIT_CORE);
> + rlim.rlim_max = MIN_RLIMIT_CORE;
> + }
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-13 1:43 ` Yang Xu
@ 2020-02-13 8:35 ` Jan Stancek
2020-02-13 8:41 ` Yang Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2020-02-13 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> > This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible?
> >
> Of course. Your way is more wise.
> But I also want to change this size of MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
> From ulimit manpage, I know in posix mode "-c" used 512-byte block. I
> doubt whether we can change MIN_RLIMIT_CORE(512 *1024), so this case
> can also pass in unbuntu(default environment).
> What do you think about this?
I don't see problem with that, we only check for correct signal.
Though it probably should be separate patch. Can you re-post
both as 2 patch series?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-13 8:35 ` Jan Stancek
@ 2020-02-13 8:41 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-13 10:11 ` Yang Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-02-13 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
on 2020/02/13 16:35, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>>> This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible?
>>>
>> Of course. Your way is more wise.
>> But I also want to change this size of MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
>> From ulimit manpage, I know in posix mode "-c" used 512-byte block. I
>> doubt whether we can change MIN_RLIMIT_CORE(512 *1024), so this case
>> can also pass in unbuntu(default environment).
>> What do you think about this?
>
> I don't see problem with that, we only check for correct signal.
> Though it probably should be separate patch. Can you re-post
> both as 2 patch series?
Hi Jan
I perfer to cleanup this case to use new API and also include this two
points.
Best Regard
Yang Xu
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE
2020-02-13 8:41 ` Yang Xu
@ 2020-02-13 10:11 ` Yang Xu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-02-13 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
on 2020/02/13 16:41, Yang Xu wrote:
>
>
> on 2020/02/13 16:35, Jan Stancek wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible?
>>>>
>>> Of course. Your way is more wise.
>>> But I also want to change this size of MIN_RLIMIT_CORE.
>>> ? From ulimit manpage, I know in posix mode "-c" used 512-byte block. I
>>> doubt whether we can change MIN_RLIMIT_CORE(512 *1024), so this case
>>> can also pass in unbuntu(default environment).
>>> What do you think about this?
>>
>> I don't see problem with that, we only check for correct signal.
>> Though it probably should be separate patch. Can you re-post
>> both as 2 patch series?
Hi Jan
Since abort01 has the same issue, I will send a patch series as you
advise, and then cleanup kill11 when I have free time.
Best Regargd
Yang Xu
> Hi Jan
> ?I perfer to cleanup this case to use new API and also include this two
> points.
>
> Best Regard
> Yang Xu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-13 10:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-12 5:44 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE Yang Xu
2020-02-12 6:11 ` Xiao Yang
2020-02-12 6:41 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-12 13:32 ` Jan Stancek
2020-02-13 1:43 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-13 8:35 ` Jan Stancek
2020-02-13 8:41 ` Yang Xu
2020-02-13 10:11 ` Yang Xu
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.