On Friday 31 October 2008 16:02:48 Kai Henningsen wrote: > Am Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:53:25 -0500 > > schrieb "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Gollub <dgollub@xxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > EINVAL bufsiz is not positive. > > > > The EINVAL error was added to man-pages-1.18 in 1997 (even though, as > > you note, the type was "size_t"). I suspect (this was well before I > > had any association with man-pages) that was done to reflect kernel > > reality (since one could bypass glibc invoke the syscall directly), > > but obviously it is inconsistent with the prototype. > > Actually, it's not inconsistent as described, though perhaps that is > unintentional. "Not positive" isn't the same as "negative", as zero > isn't positive either, and zero is certainly a possible value of an > unsigned type True. But there is still the problem for the ltp syscall test "readlink03", when using the glibc "readlink" interface, by calling readlink with a buffer size of "-1". Calling "-1" seems to be a valid code/error-path in the linux syscall "readlink", since there is a check for less-equal zero. But the less zero, condition can't be reached via the glibc "readlink" interface since this would cause fortify-check to fail (when buliding with - D_FORITFY_SOURCE=2). To "workaround" the fortify check, by not compiling the testcase with - D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, or trying to test the linux readlink interface by calling directly syscall() in the testcase ... both suggestion are just workarounds - no real solutions. We could also just remove the testcase of buffer size "-1". The problem is still, how to test the "readlink" syscall in LTP? best regards, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
