On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:32:41PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/01/15 15:18), Pavel Březina wrote:
>On 01/09/2015 03:17 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>If OR is used in assert macro we never know what part of the condition
>>was not met from a failure message directly.
>>
>>I'm seeing a failure in server-tests, because pid number of sssd process
>>is greater than 0xffff, it is bigger than 100k. Where does this constant
>>come from?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max
On my system i is 0x8000
echo "obase=16; `cat /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max`" | bc
>>
>>[ RUN ] test_run_as_root_daemon
>>tmp > 0xFFFF
>>/home/pbrezina/workspace/sssd/src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c:79: error:
>>Failure
>
>And now with the patch.
>
>From 7d5912f3206205dc24537f3640e9a8701995ceaf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?= <pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:12:31 +0100
>Subject: [PATCH] server-tests: do not use complex condition in assert
>
>If OR is used in assert macro we never know what part of the
>condition was not met from a failure message directly.
>---
> src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c b/src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c
>index
d0aeac47d0b067fdbc3399037c0a74f150337a23..560d73330f8caa5ba9706d13bae296594bb2841f 100644
>--- a/src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c
>+++ b/src/tests/cwrap/test_server.c
>@@ -75,7 +75,9 @@ static void wait_for_bg_server(const char *pidfile)
> buf[sizeof(buf) - 1] = '\0';
>
> tmp = strtol(buf, NULL, 10);
>- assert_false(tmp == 0 || tmp > 0xFFFF || errno == ERANGE);
>+ assert_false(tmp == 0);
>+ assert_false(tmp > 0xFFFF);
^^^^^^
I think we should not rely on such constant
because you can set the value higher
(up to 2^22 on 32-bit machines: 4,194,304) with:
echo 4194303 > /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max
LS
git blame points to me and IIRC I took part of these tests from
uid_wrapper code without too much thinking about them.
I think we can just remove the 0xFFFF part completely.