[SSSD] [PATCH 1/1] tests: Don't assume absolute test dir in test_io.c

Nikolai Kondrashov Nikolai.Kondrashov at redhat.com
Fri May 23 10:01:19 UTC 2014


On 05/23/2014 01:00 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 12:49 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2014 01:20 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>> On 05/19/2014 08:34 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I managed not to notice this before, behind other errors, but I get these
>>>>> too. It seems it is reall a Valgrind issue. I.e. it doesn't seem to make sense
>>>>> to apply "--error-exitcode" to child processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it seems that the exit status of the process in question is hardcoded
>>>>> to zero. So, can we perhaps work this around for now by changing the assertion
>>>>> to the following?
>>>>>
>>>>>      verify_eq (WIFSIGNALED(child_status), 0);
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, I'll submit a patch.
>>>>
>>>> Scratch that. The "--error-exitcode" option is useless with child tracking,
>>>> anyway. Any errors in children will not affect exit code of the parent
>>>> Valgrind. I guess I'll have to do XML Valgrind output and analyze that.
>>>> Sigh...
>>>
>>> Nope. Valgrind's XML output is useless for forked programs. XML gets all
>>> jumbled up. Valgrind outputs to separate files only for children which exec'd.
>>>
>>> This leaves me with parsing plain text output, which is even worse.
>>> Besides, Valgrind seems to lose count of errors which happened after forking,
>>> but before exec'ing. Still, there doesn't seem to be a better way.
>>
>> Why is there forking involved even with CK_FORK=no?
>
> The test_dbus_setup_mock forks the sbus server.

Anyway, we shouldn't rule out the need to fork in tests.

Nick



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list