Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

pnagato_protonmail.com (NagaChaitanya Vellanki)
User

Projects

User does not belong to any projects.

User Details

User Since
Jul 1 2019, 4:35 PM (68 w, 6 d)

Recent Activity

Tue, Oct 13

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@jmg ping, please review..

Tue, Oct 13, 9:46 PM · tests

Sep 20 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add md4,md5,sha,sha256,sha512,skein,ripemd to message digest section

Sep 20 2020, 4:15 AM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add md4,md5,sha,sha256,sha512,skein,ripemd to message digest section

Sep 20 2020, 4:14 AM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Fix typo md to md5 for message digest library

Sep 20 2020, 12:12 AM

Sep 19 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add a missing period at the end of sentence

Sep 19 2020, 5:10 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add vgl to the libraries list

Sep 19 2020, 4:50 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@imp if the test binary is run directly like this. We can see the assertion output.

./sbuf_core_test sbuf_new_negative_test_non_user_flags

sbuf_core_test: WARNING: Running test cases outside of kyua(1) is unsupported
sbuf_core_test: WARNING: No isolation nor timeout control is being applied; you may get unexpected failures; see atf-test-case(4)
expected_death: Non user flags cannot be specified
Assertion failed: (((flags & ~0x0000ffff) == 0)), function sbuf_new, file /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c, line 233.
Abort (core dumped)

@imp tried the do while.. & assert. In both cases kyua does not print to log file. I see the msg only when the binary is run standalone or a single test case is run. For e.g.

kyua debug sbuf_core_test:sbuf_new_negative_test
Assertion failed: ((length >= 0)), function sbuf_new, file /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c, line 231.
Process with PID 29505 exited with signal 6 and dumped core; attempting to gather stack trace
Cannot find GDB binary; builtin was 'gdb'
sbuf_core_test:sbuf_new_negative_test  ->  expected_failure: Buffer length cannot be negative

@imp I removed the output from the kyua log from this comment.

Sep 19 2020, 2:46 PM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Update date; fix issues reported by igor

Sep 19 2020, 2:25 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add few more libraries information

Sep 19 2020, 4:08 AM

Sep 18 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).

Add more libraries to the list

Sep 18 2020, 11:34 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com requested review of D26476: Update manpage for intro(3).
Sep 18 2020, 9:13 PM

Sep 16 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@imp if the test binary is run directly like this. We can see the assertion output.

./sbuf_core_test sbuf_new_negative_test_non_user_flags

sbuf_core_test: WARNING: Running test cases outside of kyua(1) is unsupported
sbuf_core_test: WARNING: No isolation nor timeout control is being applied; you may get unexpected failures; see atf-test-case(4)
expected_death: Non user flags cannot be specified
Assertion failed: (((flags & ~0x0000ffff) == 0)), function sbuf_new, file /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c, line 233.
Abort (core dumped)
Sep 16 2020, 8:41 PM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@imp if the test binary is run directly like this. We can see the assertion output.

Sep 16 2020, 7:31 AM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

atf_tc_expect_death("....") will print the reason. For e.g.

Sep 16 2020, 7:19 AM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@jmg Please review.

Sep 16 2020, 7:15 AM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

Add negative tests for sbuf_new

Sep 16 2020, 7:13 AM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com retitled D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files from WIP: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files to Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.
Sep 16 2020, 3:50 AM

Sep 12 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.
In D26220#584584, @jmg wrote:
In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

@jmg @imp Need your input how to proceed on the sbuf_negative test.

I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Maybe you could give a one or two sentence summary of what it should test?

@imp I am assuming the sbuf_new_negative_test is supposed to test for cases for which sbuf_new fails to create a sbuf.

From sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c

	KASSERT(length >= 0,
	    ("attempt to create an sbuf of negative length (%d)", length));
	KASSERT((flags & ~SBUF_USRFLAGMSK) == 0,
	    ("%s called with invalid flags", __func__));

or when SBMALLOC fails..

So, looking at the KASSERT, we may want to change how KASSERTs are compiled for userland. Right now it gets compiled to nothing, which means that there is nothing preventing userland from passing negative lengths and the like. We may want to think about making KASSERT call abort, but then some KASSERTs (like those in sbuf_new quoted above) need to be changed because aborting when length, which might be a user defined parameter seems like a bad idea.

Also, it looks like sbuf.9 doesn't document the KASSERT restrictions in sbuf_new, so a userland caller may accidentally generate a corrupted sbuf.

As for how to make sbuf fail due to malloc, I don't know.

@jmg i will skip the sbuf_new_negative_test for now. Please review the other tests.

Sep 12 2020, 5:43 PM · tests

Sep 3 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.
In D26220#584584, @jmg wrote:
In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

@jmg @imp Need your input how to proceed on the sbuf_negative test.

I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Maybe you could give a one or two sentence summary of what it should test?

@imp I am assuming the sbuf_new_negative_test is supposed to test for cases for which sbuf_new fails to create a sbuf.

From sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c

	KASSERT(length >= 0,
	    ("attempt to create an sbuf of negative length (%d)", length));
	KASSERT((flags & ~SBUF_USRFLAGMSK) == 0,
	    ("%s called with invalid flags", __func__));

or when SBMALLOC fails..

So, looking at the KASSERT, we may want to change how KASSERTs are compiled for userland. Right now it gets compiled to nothing, which means that there is nothing preventing userland from passing negative lengths and the like. We may want to think about making KASSERT call abort, but then some KASSERTs (like those in sbuf_new quoted above) need to be changed because aborting when length, which might be a user defined parameter seems like a bad idea.

Also, it looks like sbuf.9 doesn't document the KASSERT restrictions in sbuf_new, so a userland caller may accidentally generate a corrupted sbuf.

As for how to make sbuf fail due to malloc, I don't know.

Sep 3 2020, 7:27 AM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

Skip sbuf_new_negative_test,implement sbuf_new_positive_test

Sep 3 2020, 7:25 AM · tests

Sep 2 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.

Space after #include

Sep 2 2020, 11:33 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.

Add new line and space after #include

Sep 2 2020, 11:18 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.

@lwhsu Thank you, i moved the duplicated code under x86/include/x86_ieeefp.h and i was able to arc to update the diff.

Sep 2 2020, 8:44 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com updated the diff for D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.

Move duplicated code under x86/include

Sep 2 2020, 8:41 PM
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.
In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

@jmg @imp Need your input how to proceed on the sbuf_negative test.

I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Maybe you could give a one or two sentence summary of what it should test?

Sep 2 2020, 5:47 PM · tests
pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.

Added the duplication to a new file

Sep 2 2020, 6:52 AM
pnagato_protonmail.com requested review of D26292: Reduce Duplication in sys/*/include files.
Sep 2 2020, 6:48 AM

Sep 1 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com added a comment to D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.

@jmg @imp Need your input how to proceed on the sbuf_negative test.

Sep 1 2020, 6:22 PM · tests

Aug 28 2020

pnagato_protonmail.com requested review of D26220: Improve test coverage for sbuf.
Aug 28 2020, 5:33 PM · tests