On 8/6/23 09:18, Osama Muhammad wrote:
This patch covers the testing of PR_GET_NAME by
reading it's value from proc/self/task/pid/comm
and matching it by the value returned by PR_GET_NAME.
So the values should match? Can you elaborate that in the
change log.
Signed-off-by: Osama Muhammad <osmtendev@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c
index 3bc5e0e09..41f4b105d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/prctl/set-process-name.c
@@ -47,6 +47,28 @@ int check_null_pointer(char *check_name)
return res;
}
+int check_name(void)
+{
+
+ int pid;
+
+ pid = getpid();
+ FILE *fptr;
+ char path[50] = {};
Define this and use it. Don't hard-code the size.
MAX_PATH_LEN - look for other such defines.
+ int j;
+
+ j = snprintf(path, 50, "/proc/self/task/%d/comm", pid);
Here - it makes it easier to maintain.
+ fptr = fopen(path, "r");
+ char name[TASK_COMM_LEN] = {};
+ int res = prctl(PR_GET_NAME, name, NULL, NULL, NULL);
+ char output[TASK_COMM_LEN] = {};
Code after declarations please. It is easier to read and follow.
+
+ fscanf(fptr, "%s", output);
Don't you want to check error return here?
+
+ return !strcmp(output, name);
+
+}
+
TEST(rename_process) {
EXPECT_GE(set_name(CHANGE_NAME), 0);
@@ -57,6 +79,9 @@ TEST(rename_process) {
EXPECT_GE(set_name(CHANGE_NAME), 0);
EXPECT_LT(check_null_pointer(CHANGE_NAME), 0);
+
No need to for this extra line
+ EXPECT_TRUE(check_name());
+
}
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
thanks,
-- Shuah
