mirror of
https://github.com/darlinghq/darling-xnu.git
synced 2024-11-23 12:39:55 +00:00
57 lines
1.6 KiB
C
57 lines
1.6 KiB
C
#include <fcntl.h>
|
|
#include <sys/fcntl.h>
|
|
#include <darwintest.h>
|
|
#include <darwintest_utils.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
T_GLOBAL_META(
|
|
T_META_NAMESPACE("xnu.ipc"),
|
|
T_META_RADAR_COMPONENT_NAME("xnu"),
|
|
T_META_RADAR_COMPONENT_VERSION("IPC"),
|
|
T_META_OWNER("jonathan_w_adams"),
|
|
T_META_RUN_CONCURRENTLY(TRUE));
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* See rdar://77264182: xnu's lockf implementation had trouble
|
|
* with l_len = 0 (e.g. go to EOF) being treated differently
|
|
* than (l_start + l_len - 1) == OFF_MAX, even though they are
|
|
* effectively the same thing. ~25 loops of this test was enough
|
|
* to get an Intel mac into an infinite loop in the kernel.
|
|
*/
|
|
T_DECL(lockf_EOF_77264182,
|
|
"try to stress out lockf requests around OFF_MAX/EOF",
|
|
T_META_CHECK_LEAKS(false))
|
|
{
|
|
const char *dir = dt_tmpdir();
|
|
int fd;
|
|
T_ASSERT_POSIX_SUCCESS(chdir(dir), "chdir(%s)", dir);
|
|
|
|
T_ASSERT_POSIX_SUCCESS((fd = open("lockf_EOF_test", O_CREAT | O_RDWR, 0666)), "open(lockf_EOF_test)");
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* At each loop, we do:
|
|
* write lock [OFF_MAX - loop, EOF)
|
|
* unlock [OFF_MAX - loop, OFF_MAX)
|
|
* write lock [OFF_MAX - loop - 1, OFF_MAX)
|
|
*/
|
|
int loops;
|
|
for (loops = 0; loops < 100; loops++) {
|
|
struct flock fl = {
|
|
.l_start = OFF_MAX - loops,
|
|
.l_len = 0,
|
|
.l_pid = getpid(),
|
|
.l_type = F_WRLCK,
|
|
.l_whence = SEEK_SET
|
|
};
|
|
T_ASSERT_POSIX_SUCCESS(fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl), "wrlock");
|
|
fl.l_len = OFF_MAX - fl.l_start + 1;
|
|
fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
|
|
T_ASSERT_POSIX_SUCCESS(fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl), "unlock");
|
|
fl.l_start--;
|
|
fl.l_len++;
|
|
fl.l_type = F_WRLCK;
|
|
T_ASSERT_POSIX_SUCCESS(fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl), "wrlock 2");
|
|
}
|
|
T_PASS("did %d loops", loops);
|
|
}
|