Re: misc/tst-ttyname time outs

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

* Szabolcs Nagy:

> On 03/01/2019 11:30, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> ENOSPC is tough to deal with here.  I suspect it involves asynchronous
>> namespace deallocation (so the next run of the test starts before the
>> previous namespace is gone).
>> 
>> For EMFILE, please try the attached patch.  It should help.
>> 
>> It also guards against the infinite loop.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Florian
>> 
>> Subject: [PATCH] Linux: Improve handling of resource limits in misc/tst-ttyname
>> 
>> An attempt to re-create a different PTY under the same name can fail
>> if the PTY has a very high number.  Try to increase the file
>> descriptor limit in this case, and bail out if this still does not
>> allow the test to proceed.
>> 
>> 2019-01-03  Florian Weimer  <fweimer@redhat.com>
>> 
>> 	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-ttyname.c (adjust_file_limit): New
>> 	function.
>> 	(do_in_chroot_1): Call it.
>> 	(run_chroot_tests):
>> 	Improve error reporting in case it is not possible to create a
>> 	collision for the PTY name required by the test.
>> 
>
> this works for me, i get
>
> $ cat misc/tst-ttyname.test-result
> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ttyname
> original exit status 77
> $ cat misc/tst-ttyname.out
> info:  entering chroot 1
> info: adjusting RLIMIT_NOFILE from 1024 to 1671
> info:    testcase: basic smoketest
> info:      ttyname: PASS {name="/dev/pts/1661", errno=0}
> info:      ttyname_r: PASS {name="/dev/pts/1661", ret=0, errno=0}
> info:    testcase: no conflict, no match
> info:      ttyname: PASS {name=NULL, errno=19}
> info:      ttyname_r: PASS {name=NULL, ret=19, errno=19}
> info:    testcase: no conflict, console
> info:      ttyname: PASS {name="/dev/console", errno=0}
> info:      ttyname_r: PASS {name="/dev/console", ret=0, errno=0}
> error: ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-ttyname.c:486: cannot re-create PTY "/dev/pts/1661" in chroot: No space left on device (consider
> increasing limits)
>
>> +	if (posix_openpt (O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) < 0)
>> +	  {
>> +	    if (errno == ENOSPC || errno == EMFILE || errno == ENOSPC)
>
> ENOSPC is checked twice.

Thanks, fixed thusly:

-	    if (errno == ENOSPC || errno == EMFILE || errno == ENOSPC)
+	    if (errno == ENOSPC || errno == EMFILE || errno == ENFILE)

Siddhesh, what do you think?  Should we put this into 2.29?

Florian