On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 07:56:29PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:
+static void test_clone3(uint64_t flags, size_t size, int expected,
enum test_mode test_mode)+{
- int ret;
- ksft_print_msg(
"[%d] Trying clone3() with flags %#" PRIx64 " (size %zu)\n",getpid(), flags, size);- ret = call_clone3(flags, size, test_mode);
- ksft_print_msg("[%d] clone3() with flags says: %d expected %d\n",
getpid(), ret, expected);- if (ret != expected)
ksft_test_result_fail("[%d] Result (%d) is different than expected (%d)\n",getpid(), ret, expected);- else
ksft_test_result_pass("[%d] Result (%d) matches expectation (%d)\n",getpid(), ret, expected);+} +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
Nit: missing \n between } and int main(). I'll just fix that up myself.
- /*
* Do a clone3() with sizeof(struct clone_args) + 8* and all members set to 0. This resets exit_signal and wait()* will not get a result.
That comment is not true and now also misleading since you now pass _WALL to waitpid() above. I'll just remove it when applying.
*/- test_clone3(0, sizeof(struct clone_args) + 8, 0, CLONE3_ARGS_ALL_0);
- /* Do a clone3() with > page size */
- test_clone3(0, getpagesize() + 8, -E2BIG, CLONE3_ARGS_NO_TEST);
- /* Do a clone3() with CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0 in a new PID NS. */
- if (uid == 0)
test_clone3(CLONE_NEWPID, CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0, 0,CLONE3_ARGS_NO_TEST);- else
ksft_test_result_skip("Skipping clone3() with CLONE_NEWPID\n");- /* Do a clone3() with CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0 - 8 in a new PID NS */
- test_clone3(CLONE_NEWPID, CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0 - 8, -EINVAL,
CLONE3_ARGS_NO_TEST);- /* Do a clone3() with sizeof(struct clone_args) + 8 in a new PID NS */
- if (uid == 0)
test_clone3(CLONE_NEWPID, sizeof(struct clone_args) + 8, 0,CLONE3_ARGS_NO_TEST);
So there's a missing test condition here, no? I've just realized you're passing in sizeof(struct clone_args) + 8 which hits the first excess space 64 bit value which is 0. That's good and the reason why this test passes. But I don't see any test for sizoef(struct clone_args_extended) or at least sizeof(struct clone_args) + 16 such that you actually hit the second 64 bit integer which is initialized to 1 and thus clone3() should fail with -E2BIG.If I haven't overlooked this test, can you please add it? It's quite important since it's a different codepath than the sizeof(PAGE_SIZE) + 8 codepath.
Thanks! Christian