Re: [PATCH] accept4 tests: fix specified flags

[Pino Toscano]

On Thursday 08 October 2015 15:46:42 Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 08/10/15 13:47, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > Pass only SOCK_* flags to accept4, as they are the only documented
> > ones, and passing others may trigger EINVAL.
> > * tests/test-accept4.c: (main): Pass SOCK_CLOEXEC instead of
> > O_CLOEXEC | O_BINARY to accept4.
> > ---
> >  ChangeLog            | 7 +++++++
> >  tests/test-accept4.c | 4 ++--
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
> > index 02d8bf8..3601eda 100644
> > --- a/ChangeLog
> > +++ b/ChangeLog
> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> > +2015-10-08  Pino Toscano  <address@hidden>
> > +
> > +   Pass only SOCK_* flags to accept4, as they are the only documented
> > +   ones, and passing others may trigger EINVAL.
> > +   * tests/test-accept4.c: (main): Pass SOCK_CLOEXEC instead of
> > +   O_CLOEXEC | O_BINARY to accept4.
> > +
> >  2015-10-06  Pavel Raiskup  <address@hidden>
> >  
> >     gnulib-tool: fix tests of 'extensions' module
> > diff --git a/tests/test-accept4.c b/tests/test-accept4.c
> > index b24af0b..b2e6fa8 100644
> > --- a/tests/test-accept4.c
> > +++ b/tests/test-accept4.c
> > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ main (void)
> >  
> >      errno = 0;
> >      ASSERT (accept4 (-1, (struct sockaddr *) &addr, &addrlen,
> > -                     O_CLOEXEC | O_BINARY)
> > +                     SOCK_CLOEXEC)
> >              == -1);
> >      ASSERT (errno == EBADF);
> >    }
> > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ main (void)
> >      close (99);
> >      errno = 0;
> >      ASSERT (accept4 (99, (struct sockaddr *) &addr, &addrlen,
> > -                     O_CLOEXEC | O_BINARY)
> > +                     SOCK_CLOEXEC)
> >              == -1);
> >      ASSERT (errno == EBADF);
> >    }
> 
> That change looks good, though it also suggests that
> the implementation doesn't assume the availability of SOCK_CLOEXEC etc.
> I think we also may need the following included in your patch,
> to ensure the test compiles on all platforms, and that those
> constants are defined appropriately on all platforms?

The idea seems ok -- should I merge it with my patch, or can/should it
go as separate patch?

> diff --git a/lib/accept4.c b/lib/accept4.c
> index adf0989..992dfd0 100644
> --- a/lib/accept4.c
> +++ b/lib/accept4.c
> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@
>  #include "binary-io.h"
>  #include "msvc-nothrow.h"
> 
> -#ifndef SOCK_CLOEXEC
> -# define SOCK_CLOEXEC 0
> -#endif
> -
>  int
>  accept4 (int sockfd, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t *addrlen, int flags)
>  {
> diff --git a/lib/sys_socket.in.h b/lib/sys_socket.in.h
> index d29cc09..2d9df45 100644
> --- a/lib/sys_socket.in.h
> +++ b/lib/sys_socket.in.h
> @@ -654,10 +654,16 @@ _GL_WARN_ON_USE (shutdown, "shutdown is not always 
> POSIX compliant - "
> 
>  #if @GNULIB_ACCEPT4@
>  /* Accept a connection on a socket, with specific opening flags.
> -   The flags are a bitmask, possibly including O_CLOEXEC (defined in 
> <fcntl.h>)
> -   and O_TEXT, O_BINARY (defined in "binary-io.h").
> +   The flags are a bitmask, possibly including SOCK_NONBLOCK,
> +   SOCK_CLOEXEC, and O_TEXT, O_BINARY (defined in "binary-io.h").
>     See also the Linux man page at
>     <http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/accept4.2.html>.  
> */
> +# ifndef SOCK_CLOEXEC
> +#  define SOCK_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC
> +# endif
> +# ifndef SOCK_NONBLOCK
> +#  define SOCK_NONBLOCK O_NONBLOCK
> +# endif
>  # if @HAVE_ACCEPT4@
>  #  if !(defined __cplusplus && defined GNULIB_NAMESPACE)
>  #   define accept4 rpl_accept4

SOCK_CLOEXEC is used only in src/accept4.c, so that seems ok.
OTOH, SOCK_NONBLOCK is checked in tests/test-nonblocking.c, where it
would enable the code passing extra flags to the socket type; defining
could make that check failing in case the OS does not implement accept4
(and thus we are providing SOCK_*). What do you think?

-- 
Pino Toscano

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.