On 6/6/23 11:55, Osama Muhammad wrote:

This patch will add the new test, which covers the prctl call PR_SET_NAME command. The test tries to give a name using the PR_SET_NAME call and then confirm it that it changed correctly by using PR_GET_NAME. It also tries to rename it with empty name.In the test PR_GET_NAME is tested by passing null pointer to it and check its behaviour.

Signed-off-by: Osama Muhammad osmtendev@gmail.com

tools/testing/selftests/prctl/Makefile | 2 +- .../selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/Makefile index c058b81ee..cfc35d29f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/Makefile @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/x86/ -e s/x86_64/x86/) ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) TEST_PROGS := disable-tsc-ctxt-sw-stress-test disable-tsc-on-off-stress-test \

• disable-tsc-test set-anon-vma-name-test
  

• disable-tsc-test set-anon-vma-name-test set-process-name
  

  all: $(TEST_PROGS)

include ../lib.mk diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..12c5ed9a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*

• • This test covers the PR_SET_NAME functionality of prctl calls
• */

+#include <errno.h> +#include <sys/prctl.h> +#include <string.h>

+#include "../kselftest_harness.h"

+#define CHANGE_NAME "changename" +#define EMPTY_NAME ""

+int set_name(char *name) +{

• int res;
• res = prctl(PR_SET_NAME, name, NULL, NULL, NULL);
• if (res < 0)

• return -errno;
  

• return res;

+}

+int check_is_name_correct(char *check_name) +{

• char name[16];

Use TASK_COMM_LEN here instead of 16.

• int res;
• res = prctl(PR_GET_NAME, name, NULL, NULL, NULL);
• if (res < 0)

• return -errno;
  

• return !strcmp(name, check_name);

+}

+int check_null_pointer(char *check_name) +{

• char *name = NULL;
• int res;
• res = prctl(PR_GET_NAME, name, NULL, NULL, NULL);
• return res;

+}

+TEST(rename_process) {

• EXPECT_GE(set_name(CHANGE_NAME), 0);
• EXPECT_TRUE(check_is_name_correct(CHANGE_NAME));
• EXPECT_GE(set_name(EMPTY_NAME), 0);
• EXPECT_TRUE(check_is_name_correct(EMPTY_NAME));
• EXPECT_GE(set_name(CHANGE_NAME), 0);
• EXPECT_LT(check_null_pointer(CHANGE_NAME), 0);

+}

+TEST_HARNESS_MAIN

Otherwise looks good.

thanks, -- Shuah