Hi! > centos stream 9 (glibc 2.34) > https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/7415994730/job/20180154319 > In file included from /usr/include/linux/fs.h:19, > from /__w/ltp/ltp/include/lapi/io_uring.h:17, > from /__w/ltp/ltp/lib/tst_fd.c:21: > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/mount.h:35:3: error: expected identifier before numeric constant > 35 | MS_RDONLY = 1, /* Mount read-only. */ > | ^~~~~~~~~ > CC lib/tst_fill_file.o > make[1]: *** [/__w/ltp/ltp/include/mk/rules.mk:15: tst_fd.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Synchronizing_Headers > does mention conflict between <linux/mount.h> and <sys/mount.h>, > and that's what happen - <linux/fs.h> includes <linux/mount.h>. > > I send a fix for this which should be applied before the release: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20240105002914.1463989-1-pvorel@xxxxxxx/ > > It fixes most of the distros: > https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/7416413061/job/20181348475 > > But unfortunately it fails on one distro: Ubuntu Bionic (glibc 2.27): > https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/7416413061/job/20181348475 > > In file included from ../include/lapi/io_uring.h:17:0, > from tst_fd.c:21: > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/mount.h:35:3: error: expected identifier before numeric constant > MS_RDONLY = 1, /* Mount read-only. */ > ^ > ../include/mk/rules.mk:15: recipe for target 'tst_fd.o' failed > > I'm not sure if we can fix it. Somebody tried to fix it for QEMU: > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20220802164134.1851910-1-berrange@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > which got later deleted due accepted glibc fix: > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20231109135933.1462615-46-mjt@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Maybe it's time to drop Ubuntu Bionic? We have Leap 42.2, which is the oldest > distro we care and it works on it (probably it does not have HAVE_FSOPEN > defined). > > There is yet another error for very old distros ie. old Leap 42.2 (glibc 2.22), > probably missing fallback definitions? > https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/7415994730/job/20180153354 > > In file included from ../include/lapi/io_uring.h:17:0, > from tst_fd.c:21: > /usr/include/sys/mount.h:35:3: error: expected identifier before numeric constant > MS_RDONLY = 1, /* Mount read-only. */ > ^ > tst_fd.c: In function 'open_io_uring': > tst_fd.c:195:9: warning: missing initializer for field 'sq_entries' of 'struct io_uring_params' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] > struct io_uring_params uring_params = {}; > ^ > In file included from tst_fd.c:21:0: > ../include/lapi/io_uring.h:198:11: note: 'sq_entries' declared here > uint32_t sq_entries; > ^ > tst_fd.c: In function 'open_bpf_map': > tst_fd.c:208:3: warning: missing initializer for field 'key_size' of 'struct <anonymous>' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] > .key_size = 4, > ^ > In file included from tst_fd.c:22:0: > ../include/lapi/bpf.h:185:12: note: 'key_size' declared here > uint32_t key_size; /* size of key in bytes */ > ^ > tst_fd.c:209:3: warning: missing initializer for field 'value_size' of 'struct <anonymous>' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] > .value_size = 8, > ^ > In file included from tst_fd.c:22:0: > ../include/lapi/bpf.h:186:12: note: 'value_size' declared here > uint32_t value_size; /* size of value in bytes */ > ^ > tst_fd.c:210:3: warning: missing initializer for field 'max_entries' of 'struct <anonymous>' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] > .max_entries = 1, > ^ > In file included from tst_fd.c:22:0: > ../include/lapi/bpf.h:187:12: note: 'max_entries' declared here > uint32_t max_entries; /* max number of entries in a map */ > ^ > tst_fd.c:211:2: warning: missing initializer for field 'map_flags' of 'struct <anonymous>' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] > }; > ^ > In file included from tst_fd.c:22:0: > ../include/lapi/bpf.h:188:12: note: 'map_flags' declared here > uint32_t map_flags; /* BPF_MAP_CREATE related > ^ > make[1]: *** [tst_fd.o] Error 1 > ../include/mk/rules.mk:15: recipe for target 'tst_fd.o' failed Uff, do we still support distros with these header failures? I especailly used the lapi/ headers where possible in order to avoid any compilation failures, if lapi/bpf.h fails it's lapi/bpf.h that is broken though. > > +static void destroy_pipe(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + SAFE_CLOSE(fd->priv); > > +} > > + > > +static void open_unix_sock(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = SAFE_SOCKET(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static void open_inet_sock(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = SAFE_SOCKET(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static void open_epoll(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = epoll_create(1); > > + > > + if (fd->fd < 0) > > + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "epoll_create()"); > > +} > > + > > +static void open_eventfd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = eventfd(0, 0); > > + > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > Why there is sometimes TCONF? Permissions? I would expect some check which would > determine whether TCONF or TBROK. Again, I suppose you'll be able to check, when > TST_EXP_FAIL() merged, right? The TCONF branch is added to the calls that can be disabled in kernel. The CONFIG_EVENTFD can turn off the eventfd() syscall so we can't TBROK here on a failure. > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void open_signalfd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + sigset_t sfd_mask; > > + sigemptyset(&sfd_mask); > > + > > + fd->fd = signalfd(-1, &sfd_mask, 0); > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void open_timerfd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = timerfd_create(CLOCK_REALTIME, 0); > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void open_pidfd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0); > > + if (fd->fd < 0) > > + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "pidfd_open()"); > > +} > > + > > +static void open_fanotify(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF, O_RDONLY); > FYI we have safe_fanotify_init(), which checks for ENOSYS. But it calls tst_brk() on ENOSYS so we can't use that here. > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void open_inotify(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = inotify_init(); > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void open_userfaultfd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + fd->fd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, 0); > Wouldn't be safe to use tst_syscall() ? Again that one calls tst_brk() on ENOSYS, we can't call any of the tst_* or safe_* variants because of that. > > + > > + if (fd->fd < 0) { > > + tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO, > > + "Skipping %s", tst_fd_desc(fd)); > > + } > > +} > > ... > > + [TST_FD_FSPICK] = {.open_fd = open_fspick, .desc = "fspick"}, > > + [TST_FD_OPEN_TREE] = {.open_fd = open_open_tree, .desc = "open_tree"}, > > + [TST_FD_MEMFD] = {.open_fd = open_memfd, .desc = "memfd"}, > > + [TST_FD_MEMFD_SECRET] = {.open_fd = open_memfd_secret, .desc = "memfd secret"}, > > +}; > > + > > +const char *tst_fd_desc(struct tst_fd *fd) > > +{ > > + if (fd->type >= ARRAY_SIZE(fd_desc)) > > + return "invalid"; > Maybe use assert() instead? > > + > > + return fd_desc[fd->type].desc; > > +} > > + > > +void tst_fd_init(struct tst_fd *fd) > This is not in tst_fd.h, thus check complains about not static. Ah, right, this is a leftover that should be removed, will do. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@xxxxxxx
