Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] selftests: pidfd: do not use ksft_exit_skip after ksft_set_plan

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

Calling ksft_exit_skip after ksft_set_plan results in executing fewer tests than planned. Use ksft_test_result_skip instead.

The plan passed to ksft_set_plan was wrong, too, so fix it while at it.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com

Thanks for the patch! Hm, this series misses a bunch of Cces for the maintainers of these files... (Also note that Kees has a/some series with most of us Cced that might conflict with some of these changes. But not sure rn.)

A comment below.

tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c index 7aff2d3b42c0..380c6314e6a2 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ #include <sched.h> #include <signal.h> #include <stdio.h> +#include <stdbool.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <syscall.h> @@ -27,6 +28,8 @@ #define MAX_EVENTS 5 +static bool have_pidfd_send_signal = false;

static pid_t pidfd_clone(int flags, int *pidfd, int (*fn)(void *)) { size_t stack_size = 1024; @@ -56,6 +59,13 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_simple_success(void) int pidfd, ret; const char *test_name = "pidfd_send_signal send SIGUSR1";

• if (!have_pidfd_send_signal) {

• ksft_test_result_skip(
  

• 	"%s test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported\n",
  

• 	test_name);
  

• return 0;
  

• }
• pidfd = open("/proc/self", O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC); if (pidfd < 0) ksft_exit_fail_msg(

@@ -86,6 +96,13 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_exited_fail(void) pid_t pid; const char *test_name = "pidfd_send_signal signal exited process";

• if (!have_pidfd_send_signal) {

• ksft_test_result_skip(
  

• 	"%s test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported\n",
  

• 	test_name);
  

• return 0;
  

• }
• pid = fork(); if (pid < 0) ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to create new process\n",

@@ -137,6 +154,13 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_recycled_pid_fail(void) pid_t pid1; const char *test_name = "pidfd_send_signal signal recycled pid";

• if (!have_pidfd_send_signal) {

• ksft_test_result_skip(
  

• 	"%s test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported\n",
  

• 	test_name);
  

• return 0;
  

• }
• ret = unshare(CLONE_NEWPID); if (ret < 0) ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to unshare pid namespace\n",

@@ -325,13 +349,16 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_syscall_support(void) ret = sys_pidfd_send_signal(pidfd, 0, NULL, 0); if (ret < 0) {

• if (errno == ENOSYS)
  

• 	ksft_exit_skip(
  

• if (errno == ENOSYS) {
  

• 	ksft_test_result_skip(
  	"%s test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported\n",
  	test_name);
  

If pidfd_send_signal() is not supported, you're falling through and then you're reporting:

ok 5 # SKIP pidfd_send_signal check for support test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported ok 6 pidfd_send_signal check for support test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall is supported. Tests can be executed

which seems wrong.

• ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to send signal\n",
  

• 		   test_name);
  

• } else {
  

• 	ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to send signal\n",
  

• 			   test_name);
  

• }
  

• } else {

• have_pidfd_send_signal = true;
  

  }

close(pidfd); @@ -521,7 +548,7 @@ static void test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit(int use_waitpid) int main(int argc, char **argv) { ksft_print_header();

• ksft_set_plan(4);

• ksft_set_plan(8);

test_pidfd_poll_exec(0); test_pidfd_poll_exec(1); -- 2.26.2