Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Sun, 26 Nov 2023 11:42:15 +0100
From:   Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tools/nolibc: add support for getrlimit/setrlimit
Message-ID: <63a86460-23a8-4e5a-a34d-d1825c85b5a0@t-8ch.de>
References: <20231123-nolibc-rlimit-v1-0-a428b131de2a@weissschuh.net>
 <20231123-nolibc-rlimit-v1-2-a428b131de2a@weissschuh.net>
 <20231126092828.GB7407@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231126092828.GB7407@1wt.eu>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-11-26 10:28:28+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > +int test_rlimit(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct rlimit rlim = {
> > +		.rlim_cur = 1 << 20,
> > +		.rlim_max = 1 << 20,
> > +	};
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = setrlimit(RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	rlim.rlim_cur = 0;
> > +	rlim.rlim_max = 0;
> > +
> > +	ret = getrlimit(RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	if (rlim.rlim_cur != 1 << 20)
> > +		return -1;
> > +	if (rlim.rlim_max != 1 << 20)
> > +		return -1;
> 
> I think you should used two different values here for cur and max so
> that you can also detect stupid API bugs such as a union being used
> instead of a struct, or copy-pastes in the implementation etc. For
> example using 1<<20 and 1<<21 should do the trick.

Good point, I incorporated the suggestion.

> Otherwise Ack-by me for the whole series, of course.

Thanks!

FYI I retested and pushed the series.


Thomas