Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 20:28 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On 2023-08-01 02:01:36+0800, Yuan Tan wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 17:41 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > On 2023-07-31 20:35:28+0800, Yuan Tan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 08:10 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-07-31 13:51:00+0800, Yuan Tan wrote:
> > > > > > Add a testcase of pipe that child process sends message to
> > > > > > parent
> > > > > > process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking about it some more:
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the advantage of going via a child process?
> > > > > The pipe should work the same within the same process.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The pipe is commonly used for process communication, and I
> > > > think as
> > > > a
> > > > test case it is supposed to cover the most common scenarios.
> > >
> > > The testcase is supposed to cover the code of nolibc.
> > > It should be the *minimal* amount of code to be reasonable sure
> > > that
> > > the
> > > code in nolibc does the correct thing.
> > > If pipe() returns a value that behaves like a pipe I see no
> > > reason to
> > > doubt it will also survive fork().
> > >
> > > Validating that would mean testing the kernel and not nolibc.
> > > For the kernel there are different testsuites.
> > >
> > > Less code means less work for everyone involved, now and in the
> > > future.
> > >
> >
> > It's a good point and I never thought about this aspect.
> >
> > I wonder whether the code below is enough?
> >
> > static int test_pipe(void)
> > {
> > int pipefd[2];
> >
> > if (pipe(pipefd) == -1)
> > return 1;
> >
> > close(pipefd[0]);
> > close(pipefd[1]);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> That is very barebones.
>
> If accidentally a wrong syscall number was used and the used syscall
> would not take any arguments this test would still succeed.
>
> Keeping the write-read-cycle from the previous revision would test
> that
> nicely. Essentially the same code as before but without the fork().
>
> >
> > And I forgot to add this line:
> >
> > CASE_TEST(pipe); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, test_pipe()); break;
> >
> > I will add it in next patch.
> >
>
In the situation you described, that is indeed the case.
Would this be fine?
static int test_pipe(void)
{
const char *const msg = "hello, nolibc";
int pipefd[2];
char buf[32];
ssize_t len;
if (pipe(pipefd) == -1)
return 1;
write(pipefd[1], msg, strlen(msg));
close(pipefd[1]);
len = read(pipefd[0], buf, sizeof(buf));
close(pipefd[0]);
if (len != strlen(msg))
return 1;
return !!memcmp(buf, msg, len);
}
