Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:45:25 +0200
From:   Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>
To:     Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
Cc:     w@1wt.eu, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] selftests/nolibc: rename chroot_exe to
 chroot_tmpfile
Message-ID: <8665cddc-0ac8-497c-848e-aaa42398bf24@t-8ch.de>
References: <cover.1688078604.git.falcon@tinylab.org>
 <a38a6057866b597e5f931de550f2a6f24404ecdf.1688078605.git.falcon@tinylab.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a38a6057866b597e5f931de550f2a6f24404ecdf.1688078605.git.falcon@tinylab.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-06-30 08:00:28+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> For CONFIG_PROC_FS=n, let's use tmpfs and create a tmp file for
> chroot_exe test.
> 
> Since chroot_exe is mainly testing the not directory case (ENOTDIR), so,
> rename it to chroot_tmpfile may be better.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> index 1002e0267515..2e9eaa7efa6e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> @@ -682,6 +682,8 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	void *p1, *p2;
>  	int has_gettid = 1;
> +	const char *tmpfile = get_tmpfile("/tmp/dummy");
> +	int has_tmpfile = tmpfile != NULL;
>  
>  	/* <proc> indicates whether or not /proc is mounted */
>  	proc = stat("/proc", &stat_buf) == 0;
> @@ -720,7 +722,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
>  		CASE_TEST(chown_self);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chown("/proc/self", 0, 0), -1, EPERM); break;
>  		CASE_TEST(chroot_root);       EXPECT_SYSZR(euid0, chroot("/")); break;
>  		CASE_TEST(chroot_blah);       EXPECT_SYSER(1, chroot("/proc/self/blah"), -1, ENOENT); break;
> -		CASE_TEST(chroot_exe);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chroot("/proc/self/exe"), -1, ENOTDIR); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(chroot_tmpfile);    EXPECT_SYSER(has_tmpfile, chroot(tmpfile), -1, ENOTDIR); break;

get_tempfile() looks really weird.
Given that the nolibc implementation of chroot() is the most trivial
imaginable in my opinion we can keep the current "chroot_exe" that is
using procfs.

>  		CASE_TEST(close_m1);          EXPECT_SYSER(1, close(-1), -1, EBADF); break;
>  		CASE_TEST(close_dup);         EXPECT_SYSZR(1, close(dup(0))); break;
>  		CASE_TEST(dup_0);             tmp = dup(0);  EXPECT_SYSNE(1, tmp, -1); close(tmp); break;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>