[LTP] Add TST_USES_MODULE and tst_test_root

[LTP] Add TST_USES_MODULE and tst_test_root

[Joerg Vehlow]

In preparation of lsmod01.sh patch v4.
The test requires a module only, if no modules are loaded and
in order to load the module, root is required.

[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] tst_test.sh: Add TST_USES_MODULE

[Joerg Vehlow]

From: Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>

Adds a new library variable TST_USES_MODULE, that can be used, when a
test may need a module, but should not fail, if the module is not available.
---
 doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt |  4 ++-
 testcases/lib/tst_test.sh       | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt b/doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt
index cd0d28b8e..4a0652a8d 100644
--- a/doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt
+++ b/doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt
@@ -2125,6 +2125,8 @@ simply by setting right '$TST_NEEDS_FOO'.
 | 'TST_NEEDS_CMDS'   | String with command names that has to be present for
                        the test (see below).
 | 'TST_NEEDS_MODULE' | Test module name needed for the test (see below).
+| 'TST_USES_MODULE'  | Same as TST_NEEDS_MODULE, except that a missing module
+|                    | is not an error.
 | 'TST_NEEDS_DRIVERS'| Checks kernel drivers support for the test.
 |=============================================================================
 
@@ -2174,7 +2176,7 @@ Locating kernel modules
 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 The LTP build system can build kernel modules as well, setting
-'$TST_NEEDS_MODULE' to module name will cause to library to look for the
+'$TST_NEEDS_MODULE' to module name will cause the library to look for the
 module in a few possible paths.
 
 If module was found the path to it will be stored into '$TST_MODPATH'
diff --git a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
index e0b24c6b9..c70a5abbe 100644
--- a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
+++ b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
@@ -396,6 +396,32 @@ _tst_require_root()
 	fi
 }
 
+_tst_find_module()
+{
+	local _tst_module=$1
+	local _tst_is_required=${2:-0}
+
+	for tst_module in "$_tst_module" \
+						"$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$_tst_module" \
+						"$TST_STARTWD/$_tst_module"; do
+
+			if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
+				TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
+				break
+			fi
+	done
+
+	if [ -z "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
+		if [ $_tst_is_required -eq 1 ]; then
+			tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$_tst_module'"
+		else
+			tst_res TINFO "Module '$_tst_module' not found."
+		fi
+	else
+		tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
+	fi
+}
+
 tst_run()
 {
 	local _tst_i
@@ -410,7 +436,7 @@ tst_run()
 			SETUP|CLEANUP|TESTFUNC|ID|CNT|MIN_KVER);;
 			OPTS|USAGE|PARSE_ARGS|POS_ARGS);;
 			NEEDS_ROOT|NEEDS_TMPDIR|TMPDIR|NEEDS_DEVICE|DEVICE);;
-			NEEDS_CMDS|NEEDS_MODULE|MODPATH|DATAROOT);;
+			NEEDS_CMDS|NEEDS_MODULE|USES_MODULE|MODPATH|DATAROOT);;
 			NEEDS_DRIVERS|FS_TYPE|MNTPOINT|MNT_PARAMS);;
 			IPV6|IPVER|TEST_DATA|TEST_DATA_IFS);;
 			RETRY_FUNC|RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF);;
@@ -487,22 +513,12 @@ tst_run()
 		TST_DEVICE_FLAG=1
 	fi
 
-	if [ -n "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" ]; then
-		for tst_module in "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
-		                  "$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
-		                  "$TST_STARTWD/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE"; do
-
-				if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
-					TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
-					break
-				fi
-		done
-
-		if [ -z "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
-			tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$TST_NEEDS_MODULE'"
-		else
-			tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
-		fi
+	if [ -n "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" ] && [ -n "$TST_USES_MODULE" ]; then
+		tst_brk TBROK "Setting TST_NEEDS_MODULE and TST_USES_MODULE at the same time is not allowed"
+	elif [ -n "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" ]; then
+		_tst_find_module "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" 1
+	elif [ -n "$TST_USES_MODULE" ]; then
+		_tst_find_module "$TST_USES_MODULE" 0
 	fi
 
 	if [ -n "$TST_SETUP" ]; then
-- 
2.20.1

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Joerg Vehlow]

From: Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>

If a test requires root only under certan circumstances, TST_NEEDS_ROOT
is not sufficient, because it always requires root.
---
 testcases/lib/tst_test.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
index c70a5abbe..07712670d 100644
--- a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
+++ b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
@@ -326,6 +326,13 @@ tst_check_cmds()
 	return 0
 }
 
+tst_test_root()
+{
+	if [ "$(id -ru)" != 0 ]; then
+		tst_brk TCONF "Must be super/root for this test!"
+	fi
+}
+
 tst_test_drivers()
 {
 	[ $# -eq 0 ] && return 0
@@ -389,13 +396,6 @@ _tst_setup_timer()
 	_tst_setup_timer_pid=$!
 }
 
-_tst_require_root()
-{
-	if [ "$(id -ru)" != 0 ]; then
-		tst_brk TCONF "Must be super/root for this test!"
-	fi
-}
-
 _tst_find_module()
 {
 	local _tst_module=$1
@@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ tst_run()
 		tst_brk TBROK "Number of iterations (-i) must be > 0"
 	fi
 
-	[ "$TST_NEEDS_ROOT" = 1 ] && _tst_require_root
+	[ "$TST_NEEDS_ROOT" = 1 ] && tst_test_root
 
 	[ "$TST_DISABLE_APPARMOR" = 1 ] && tst_disable_apparmor
 	[ "$TST_DISABLE_SELINUX" = 1 ] && tst_disable_selinux
-- 
2.20.1

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Joerg,

...
>  testcases/lib/tst_test.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

...
> -_tst_require_root()
> -{
> -	if [ "$(id -ru)" != 0 ]; then
> -		tst_brk TCONF "Must be super/root for this test!"
> -	fi
> -}
You need to replace s/_tst_require_root/tst_test_root/ in other library files
(tst_net.sh, tst_security.sh).
...

Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Joerg Vehlow]

Hi,


> You need to replace s/_tst_require_root/tst_test_root/ in other library files
> (tst_net.sh, tst_security.sh).
Sorry, did not expect functions with _ to be used in other files.
I'll check it next time

J?rg

[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] tst_test.sh: Add TST_USES_MODULE

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Joerg,

> From: Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>

> Adds a new library variable TST_USES_MODULE, that can be used, when a
> test may need a module, but should not fail, if the module is not available.
I wonder if TST_USES_MODULE is descriptive enough. But it looks to me better
than TST_GET_MODPATH (which Cyril suggested in v3).

We should think twice as _USES_ keyword should be used consistently for the same
approach in different functionality (i.e. TST_USES_FOO is the same as
TST_NEEDS_FOO, but not TCONF/TBROK if it fails).

But whole concept of TST_USES_FOO looks to me a bit complicated, if needed only
for modules. Cannot we just call _tst_find_module directly in this case and not
introduce variable?

...
> +++ b/doc/test-writing-guidelines.txt
> @@ -2125,6 +2125,8 @@ simply by setting right '$TST_NEEDS_FOO'.
>  | 'TST_NEEDS_CMDS'   | String with command names that has to be present for
>                         the test (see below).
>  | 'TST_NEEDS_MODULE' | Test module name needed for the test (see below).
> +| 'TST_USES_MODULE'  | Same as TST_NEEDS_MODULE, except that a missing module
> +|                    | is not an error.
>  | 'TST_NEEDS_DRIVERS'| Checks kernel drivers support for the test.
>  |=============================================================================

> @@ -2174,7 +2176,7 @@ Locating kernel modules
>  +++++++++++++++++++++++

>  The LTP build system can build kernel modules as well, setting
> -'$TST_NEEDS_MODULE' to module name will cause to library to look for the
> +'$TST_NEEDS_MODULE' to module name will cause the library to look for the
This is unrelated change, I merged it as a separate commit (c518ee8b9).

...
> +_tst_find_module()
> +{
> +	local _tst_module=$1
> +	local _tst_is_required=${2:-0}
> +
> +	for tst_module in "$_tst_module" \
> +						"$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$_tst_module" \
> +						"$TST_STARTWD/$_tst_module"; do
nit: (can be fixed by person who merges it): It's not visible, but uses more
tags than it should be, so it looks like:
+       for tst_module in "$_tst_module" \
+                                               "$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$_tst_module" \
+                                               "$TST_STARTWD/$_tst_module"; do
+
+                       if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
+                               TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
+                               break
+                       fi
I actually like the original alignment created by Alexey:
        for tst_module in "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
                          "$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
                          "$TST_STARTWD/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE"; do

> +
> +			if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
> +				TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
> +				break
> +			fi
> +	done
> +
> +	if [ -z "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
> +		if [ $_tst_is_required -eq 1 ]; then
> +			tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$_tst_module'"
> +		else
> +			tst_res TINFO "Module '$_tst_module' not found."
nit: please drop dot at the end (can be fixed by person who merges it).
> +		fi
> +	else
> +		tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
> +	fi


nit: this is IMHO more readable
	if [ -n "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
		tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
		return
	fi

	if [ $_tst_is_required -eq 1 ]; then
		tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$_tst_module'"
	else
		tst_res TINFO "Module '$_tst_module' not found"
	fi

Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] tst_test.sh: Add TST_USES_MODULE

[Joerg Vehlow]

Hi,
>> Adds a new library variable TST_USES_MODULE, that can be used, when a
>> test may need a module, but should not fail, if the module is not available.
> I wonder if TST_USES_MODULE is descriptive enough. But it looks to me better
> than TST_GET_MODPATH (which Cyril suggested in v3).
>
> We should think twice as _USES_ keyword should be used consistently for the same
> approach in different functionality (i.e. TST_USES_FOO is the same as
> TST_NEEDS_FOO, but not TCONF/TBROK if it fails).
>
> But whole concept of TST_USES_FOO looks to me a bit complicated, if needed only
> for modules. Cannot we just call _tst_find_module directly in this case and not
> introduce variable?
I was thinking about adding a function to search for a module, but 
struggled with
returning the name of the found found module.
I had something like
MODPATH=$(tst_find_module "$MODULE_NAME")
but this cannot use tst_res or tst_brk, which I don't like. I also don't 
like just calling
_tst_find_module and getting the result in some "magic" variable. That 
is the reason
why I went with Cyril's Idea of a variable
> ...
>> +_tst_find_module()
>> +{
>> +	local _tst_module=$1
>> +	local _tst_is_required=${2:-0}
>> +
>> +	for tst_module in "$_tst_module" \
>> +						"$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$_tst_module" \
>> +						"$TST_STARTWD/$_tst_module"; do
> nit: (can be fixed by person who merges it): It's not visible, but uses more
> tags than it should be, so it looks like:
> +       for tst_module in "$_tst_module" \
> +                                               "$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$_tst_module" \
> +                                               "$TST_STARTWD/$_tst_module"; do
> +
> +                       if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
> +                               TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
> +                               break
> +                       fi
> I actually like the original alignment created by Alexey:
>          for tst_module in "$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
>                            "$LTPROOT/testcases/bin/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE" \
>                            "$TST_STARTWD/$TST_NEEDS_MODULE"; do
Just an accident by my editor, I'll fix it for v2
>
>> +
>> +			if [ -f "$tst_module" ]; then
>> +				TST_MODPATH="$tst_module"
>> +				break
>> +			fi
>> +	done
>> +
>> +	if [ -z "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
>> +		if [ $_tst_is_required -eq 1 ]; then
>> +			tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$_tst_module'"
>> +		else
>> +			tst_res TINFO "Module '$_tst_module' not found."
> nit: please drop dot at the end (can be fixed by person who merges it).
Fixed for v2
>> +		fi
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
>> +	fi
>
> nit: this is IMHO more readable
> 	if [ -n "$TST_MODPATH" ]; then
> 		tst_res TINFO "Found module at '$TST_MODPATH'"
> 		return
> 	fi
>
> 	if [ $_tst_is_required -eq 1 ]; then
> 		tst_brk TCONF "Failed to find module '$_tst_module'"
> 	else
> 		tst_res TINFO "Module '$_tst_module' not found"
> 	fi
It would still keep the else and not use a return. Indentation clearly 
shows what's going on.
But I agree to invert the logic, first testing the good case, than the bad.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr

J?rg

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Petr Vorel]

Hi J?rg,

> > You need to replace s/_tst_require_root/tst_test_root/ in other library files
> > (tst_net.sh, tst_security.sh).
> Sorry, did not expect functions with _ to be used in other files.
> I'll check it next time
No problem :). Yes, they cannot be used in tests. But new shell API library is spread in 3 files.
I added a patch to document library itself from developer perspective [1].

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1166786/

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> If a test requires root only under certan circumstances, TST_NEEDS_ROOT
> is not sufficient, because it always requires root.
> ---
>  testcases/lib/tst_test.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> index c70a5abbe..07712670d 100644
> --- a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> +++ b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> @@ -326,6 +326,13 @@ tst_check_cmds()
>  	return 0
>  }
>  
> +tst_test_root()
> +{
> +	if [ "$(id -ru)" != 0 ]; then
> +		tst_brk TCONF "Must be super/root for this test!"
> +	fi
> +}

Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please?

Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Joerg Vehlow]

Hi,
> Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please?
>
> Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP.
>
Not a very good argument for two reasons:
1. The function was internal to the library, so no one (except for 
library developers)
 ?? should know about it anyway. The old public interface 
(TST_NEEDS_ROOT) is unchanged
2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar 
stuff like
 ?? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case 
of unsuccessful tests.

J?rg

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please?
> >
> > Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP.
> >
> Not a very good argument for two reasons:
> 1. The function was internal to the library, so no one (except for 
> library developers)

It has been in a public API for the old library for more than ten years
before the new library was written.

> 2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar 
> stuff like
>  ???? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case 
> of unsuccessful tests.

Well I do not like these names either, it's less descriptive that it
would have been with tst_require_cmds and tst_require_drivers, so if
anything I would be for renaming the tst_test_* ones.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Joerg Vehlow]

>>> Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please?
>>>
>>> Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP.
>>>
>> Not a very good argument for two reasons:
>> 1. The function was internal to the library, so no one (except for
>> library developers)
> It has been in a public API for the old library for more than ten years
> before the new library was written.
Has been, but is not anymore. But I accept it as an argument.
>
>> 2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar
>> stuff like
>>   ???? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case
>> of unsuccessful tests.
> Well I do not like these names either, it's less descriptive that it
> would have been with tst_require_cmds and tst_require_drivers, so if
> anything I would be for renaming the tst_test_* ones.
Fair enough, that makes sense. But then we require a change to 
tst_test_* first,
otherwise the api names are inconsistent. And I'm not sure if changing the
other functions is really worth it.

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> >> 2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar
> >> stuff like
> >>   ???? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case
> >> of unsuccessful tests.
> > Well I do not like these names either, it's less descriptive that it
> > would have been with tst_require_cmds and tst_require_drivers, so if
> > anything I would be for renaming the tst_test_* ones.
> Fair enough, that makes sense. But then we require a change to 
> tst_test_* first,
> otherwise the api names are inconsistent. And I'm not sure if changing the
> other functions is really worth it.

Should be easy for tst_test_drivers, that one is only used to implement
the NEEDS_DRIVERS variable. And for the second one, we would have to
change a few tests and one line of documentation, but that would be just
a simple script. I can do that if we agree on the change.

@Jan @Peter what do you think?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Petr Vorel]

Hi,

> > +tst_test_root()
> > +{
> > +	if [ "$(id -ru)" != 0 ]; then
> > +		tst_brk TCONF "Must be super/root for this test!"
> > +	fi
> > +}

> Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please?
> Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP.
+1

Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Cyril,

> > >> 2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar
> > >> stuff like
> > >>   ???? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case
> > >> of unsuccessful tests.
> > > Well I do not like these names either, it's less descriptive that it
> > > would have been with tst_require_cmds and tst_require_drivers, so if
> > > anything I would be for renaming the tst_test_* ones.
> > Fair enough, that makes sense. But then we require a change to 
> > tst_test_* first,
> > otherwise the api names are inconsistent. And I'm not sure if changing the
> > other functions is really worth it.

> Should be easy for tst_test_drivers, that one is only used to implement
> the NEEDS_DRIVERS variable. And for the second one, we would have to
> change a few tests and one line of documentation, but that would be just
> a simple script. I can do that if we agree on the change.

> @Jan @Peter what do you think?
We already did rename once (0567a8958 shell: Rename
s/tst_check_cmds/tst_test_cmds/), but even if we didn't;
I'm for renaming tst_test_* to tst_require_* - clear names are important
(consistency with names as well).

Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command

[Joerg Vehlow]

>> @Jan @Peter what do you think?
> We already did rename once (0567a8958 shell: Rename
> s/tst_check_cmds/tst_test_cmds/), but even if we didn't;
> I'm for renaming tst_test_* to tst_require_* - clear names are important
> (consistency with names as well).
That's two (and me) in favor of renaming tst_test_.
I will submit a patch for it.