[LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;
@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
 
@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */
@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();
-- 
1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi!

On 09/11/2014 02:30 PM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
> to "negative whence".
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
> ---
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> @@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
>   	got1++;
>   }
>
> +static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
> +{
> +	if (check_fail) {
> +		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
> +	} else {
> +		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
> +	}
> +}

There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this 
"deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)

> +
>   int main(int ac, char **av)
>   {
>   	int lc;
> @@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>   		 * mandatory locking
>   		 */
>   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
> -		if (fail) {
> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
> -		} else {
> -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
> -		}
> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
>
>   		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
>   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
> -
> -		if (fail) {
> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
> -		} else {
> -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
> -		}
> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
>
>   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
>
> @@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>   		close(fd);
>   		unlink(tmpname);
>
> -		if (fail) {
> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
> -				 "locking FAILED");
> -		} else {
> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
> -				 "locking PASSED");
> -		}
> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
>   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
>
>   /* //block4: */
> @@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>   		close(fd);
>   		unlink(tmpname);
>
> -		if (fail) {
> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
> -		} else {
> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
> -		}
> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
>   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
>   	}
>   	cleanup();
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>, ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
> 
> Hi!
> 
> On 09/11/2014 02:30 PM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> > And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
> > to "negative whence".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36
> >   +++++++++++--------------------
> >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> > index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
> > @@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
> >   	got1++;
> >   }
> >
> > +static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
> > +{
> > +	if (check_fail) {
> > +		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
> > +	} else {
> > +		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this
> "deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)

I think I have done all of them, I cannot find other places which are applicable to this function.

I will resend this series based on your last comments.

Thanks.

> 
> > +
> >   int main(int ac, char **av)
> >   {
> >   	int lc;
> > @@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> >   		 * mandatory locking
> >   		 */
> >   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
> > -		if (fail) {
> > -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
> > -		} else {
> > -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
> > -		}
> > +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
> >
> >   		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
> >   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
> > -
> > -		if (fail) {
> > -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
> > -		} else {
> > -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
> > -		}
> > +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
> >
> >   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
> >
> > @@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> >   		close(fd);
> >   		unlink(tmpname);
> >
> > -		if (fail) {
> > -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
> > -				 "locking FAILED");
> > -		} else {
> > -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
> > -				 "locking PASSED");
> > -		}
> > +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
> >   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
> >
> >   /* //block4: */
> > @@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> >   		close(fd);
> >   		unlink(tmpname);
> >
> > -		if (fail) {
> > -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
> > -		} else {
> > -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
> > -		}
> > +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
> >   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
> >   	}
> >   	cleanup();
> >
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi!

On 09/19/2014 10:46 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
>> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>, ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 09/11/2014 02:30 PM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>>> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
>>> to "negative whence".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36
>>>    +++++++++++--------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
>>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
>>> index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
>>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
>>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
>>> @@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
>>>    	got1++;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (check_fail) {
>>> +		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
>>> +	}
>>> +}
>>
>> There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this
>> "deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)
>
> I think I have done all of them, I cannot find other places which are applicable to this function.

Sorry, but by "many places" I meant block 2.

Last time I commented your [PATCH 2/3] with "And testcheck_end() to 
block 2 should be introduced in the previous patch."

Could you please add all testcheck_end() invocations in the first patch 
of the series?

Thanks.


>
> I will resend this series based on your last comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>> +
>>>    int main(int ac, char **av)
>>>    {
>>>    	int lc;
>>> @@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>>>    		 * mandatory locking
>>>    		 */
>>>    		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
>>> -		if (fail) {
>>> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
>>> -		} else {
>>> -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
>>> -		}
>>> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
>>>
>>>    		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
>>>    		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
>>> -
>>> -		if (fail) {
>>> -			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
>>> -		} else {
>>> -			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
>>> -		}
>>> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
>>>
>>>    		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
>>>
>>> @@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>>>    		close(fd);
>>>    		unlink(tmpname);
>>>
>>> -		if (fail) {
>>> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
>>> -				 "locking FAILED");
>>> -		} else {
>>> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
>>> -				 "locking PASSED");
>>> -		}
>>> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
>>>    		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
>>>
>>>    /* //block4: */
>>> @@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>>>    		close(fd);
>>>    		unlink(tmpname);
>>>
>>> -		if (fail) {
>>> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
>>> -		} else {
>>> -			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
>>> -		}
>>> +		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
>>>    		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
>>>    	}
>>>    	cleanup();
>>>
>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;
@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
 
@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */
@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();
-- 
1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

[LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 48 ++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
index 30a1ea9..b110d35 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;
@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");
 
@@ -1035,20 +1035,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, S_ENFMT | S_IRUSR |
 			       S_IWUSR, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 2, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 2, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 2, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, S_ENFMT | S_IRUSR |
 			       S_IWUSR, 5, 36, 45);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 2, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 2, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 2, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 2");
 
@@ -1094,13 +1086,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */
@@ -1223,11 +1209,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();
-- 
1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi!

On 09/25/2014 11:17 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>
> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
> to "negative whence".
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
> ---

Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to 
manually apply it.

I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, 
after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 
2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.

I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still 
investigating.

Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?

Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
> 
> Hi!
> 
> On 09/25/2014 11:17 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> >
> > And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
> > to "negative whence".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
> > ---
> 
> Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
> Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to
> manually apply it.
> 

Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.

> I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular,
> after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with
> 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.

Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.

> 
> I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still
> investigating.
> 
> Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?

I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel 
both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.

All failed test_output are just like:
tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted

One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds 
on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6. 

Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.

Thanks for catching this!

--
xzhou

> 
> Thank you.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi!

On 09/26/2014 07:23 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
>> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
>> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 09/25/2014 11:17 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
>>> to "negative whence".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
>> Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to
>> manually apply it.
>>
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
>
>> I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular,
>> after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with
>> 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
>
> Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
>
>>
>> I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still
>> investigating.
>>
>> Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?
>
> I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel
> both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
> On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.
>
> All failed test_output are just like:
> tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
> failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted

Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed  with the latest RHEL-6 
kernel. Could you elaborate on this?

>
> One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds
> on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
>
> Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.

test.c:

#include <error.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>

int main(void)
{
	if (setuid(99)) {
		perror("setuid() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
		perror("mkdir() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
		perror("chown() failed");

out:
	return 0;
}

99 is 'nobody'.

With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 `strace ./test` on a nfsv4 fs 
will show:
setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0

[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir

But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:
setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)

[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir

So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.

So on I think that your patch may be pushed.

If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks for catching this!
>
> --
> xzhou
>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Xiong Zhou]

Hi!

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:36:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
> 
> Hi!
> 
> On 09/26/2014 07:23 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
> >> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On 09/25/2014 11:17 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
> >>> to "negative whence".
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
> >> Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to
> >> manually apply it.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
> >
> >> I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular,
> >> after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with
> >> 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
> >
> > Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still
> >> investigating.
> >>
> >> Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?
> >
> > I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel
> > both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
> > On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.
> >
> > All failed test_output are just like:
> > tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
> > failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
> 
> Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed  with the latest RHEL-6
> kernel. Could you elaborate on this?

Sorry for the confusion. The latest kernel I have tested on was an internal
test temp build.

> 
> >
> > One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds
> > on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
> >
> > Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.
> 
> test.c:
> 
> #include <error.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> 	if (setuid(99)) {
> 		perror("setuid() failed");
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 
> 	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
> 		perror("mkdir() failed");
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 
> 	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
> 		perror("chown() failed");
> 
> out:
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> 99 is 'nobody'.
> 
> With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 `strace ./test` on a nfsv4 fs
> will show:
> setuid(99)                              = 0
> mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
> chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0
> 
> [root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
> drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir
> 
> But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:
> setuid(99)                              = 0
> mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
> chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
> 
> [root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
> drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir
> 
> So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.

I agree, and I think it has been recorded already.

Thanks!
--
xzhou
> 
> So on I think that your patch may be pushed.
> 
> If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >
> > Thanks for catching this!
> >
> > --
> > xzhou
> >
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi!

Patch 3 was pushed.

Thank you.

On 09/28/2014 06:53 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> Hi!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
>> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
>> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:36:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 09/26/2014 07:23 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
>>>> To: "Xiong Zhou" <xzhou@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [LTP]  [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2014 11:17 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking"
>>>>> to "negative whence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
>>>> Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to
>>>> manually apply it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
>>>
>>>> I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular,
>>>> after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with
>>>> 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
>>>
>>> Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still
>>>> investigating.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?
>>>
>>> I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel
>>> both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
>>> On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.
>>>
>>> All failed test_output are just like:
>>> tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
>>> failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed  with the latest RHEL-6
>> kernel. Could you elaborate on this?
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The latest kernel I have tested on was an internal
> test temp build.
>
>>
>>>
>>> One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds
>>> on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
>>>
>>> Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.
>>
>> test.c:
>>
>> #include <error.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <sys/stat.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> 	if (setuid(99)) {
>> 		perror("setuid() failed");
>> 		goto out;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
>> 		perror("mkdir() failed");
>> 		goto out;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
>> 		perror("chown() failed");
>>
>> out:
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>>
>> 99 is 'nobody'.
>>
>> With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 `strace ./test` on a nfsv4 fs
>> will show:
>> setuid(99)                              = 0
>> mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
>> chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0
>>
>> [root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
>> drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir
>>
>> But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:
>> setuid(99)                              = 0
>> mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
>> chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
>>
>> [root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
>> drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir
>>
>> So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.
>
> I agree, and I think it has been recorded already.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> xzhou
>>
>> So on I think that your patch may be pushed.
>>
>> If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching this!
>>>
>>> --
>>> xzhou
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  Videos for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list