On 09/07/2018 10:49 AM, jgkamat@xxxxxx wrote:
> From: Jay Kamat <jgkamat@xxxxxx>
>
> Fix a couple issues with cg_read_strcmp(), to improve correctness of
> cgroup tests
> - Fix cg_read_strcmp() always returning 0 for empty "needle" strings
> - Fix a memory leak in cg_read_strcmp()
>
> Fixes: 84092dbcf901 ("selftests: cgroup: add memory controller self-tests")
>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Kamat <jgkamat@xxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c
> index 1e9e3c470561..8b644ea39725 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.c
> @@ -89,17 +89,28 @@ int cg_read(const char *cgroup, const char *control, char *buf, size_t len)
> int cg_read_strcmp(const char *cgroup, const char *control,
> const char *expected)
> {
> - size_t size = strlen(expected) + 1;
> + size_t size;
> char *buf;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Handle the case of comparing against empty string */
> + if (!expected)
> + size = 32;
This doesn't look right. I would think expected shouldn't be null?
It gets used below.
> + else
> + size = strlen(expected) + 1;
>
> buf = malloc(size);
> if (!buf)
> return -1;
>
> - if (cg_read(cgroup, control, buf, size))
> + if (cg_read(cgroup, control, buf, size)) {
> + free(buf);
> return -1;
> + }
>
> - return strcmp(expected, buf);
> + ret = strcmp(expected, buf);
If expected is null, what's the point in running the test?
Is empty "needle" string a valid test scenario?
> + free(buf);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> int cg_read_strstr(const char *cgroup, const char *control, const char *needle)
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
