On 09/07/2018 10:49 AM, jgkamat@fb.com wrote:
From: Jay Kamat jgkamat@fb.com
Fix a couple issues with cg_read_strcmp(), to improve correctness of cgroup tests
- Fix cg_read_strcmp() always returning 0 for empty "needle" strings
- Fix a memory leak in cg_read_strcmp()
Fixes: 84092dbcf901 ("selftests: cgroup: add memory controller self-tests")
Signed-off-by: Jay Kamat jgkamat@fb.com
tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c index 1e9e3c470561..8b644ea39725 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c @@ -89,17 +89,28 @@ int cg_read(const char *cgroup, const char *control, char *buf, size_t len) int cg_read_strcmp(const char *cgroup, const char *control, const char *expected) {
- size_t size = strlen(expected) + 1;
- size_t size; char *buf;
- int ret;
- /* Handle the case of comparing against empty string */
- if (!expected)
size = 32;
This doesn't look right. I would think expected shouldn't be null? It gets used below.
- else
size = strlen(expected) + 1;buf = malloc(size); if (!buf) return -1;
- if (cg_read(cgroup, control, buf, size))
- if (cg_read(cgroup, control, buf, size)) {
free(buf);- }
- return strcmp(expected, buf);
- ret = strcmp(expected, buf);
If expected is null, what's the point in running the test? Is empty "needle" string a valid test scenario?
- free(buf);
- return ret;
} int cg_read_strstr(const char *cgroup, const char *control, const char *needle)
thanks, -- Shuah