Re: [LTP] [patch 0/3] [RFC] kernel/glibc mismatch of "readlink" syscall?

[Daniel G. <dg...@su...>]

On Friday 31 October 2008 16:02:48 Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Am Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:53:25 -0500
>
> schrieb "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk...@go...>:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Gollub <dg...@su...>
> >
> > 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