@ngie @lwhsu Hello, I found this on https://wiki.freebsd.org/JuniorJobs, Please close this. This is more involved than what i could comprehend from that page.

@lwhsu Looks good. Thank you for reviewing.

@jmg ping, please review..

In D26476#589466, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

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

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

Fix typo md to md5 for message digest library

Add a missing period at the end of sentence

Add vgl to the libraries list

In D26220#588628, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

In D26220#588409, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

@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.

Update date; fix issues reported by igor

Add few more libraries information

Add more libraries to the list

In D26220#588409, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

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

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

@jmg Please review.

Add negative tests for sbuf_new

In D26220#584735, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

In D26220#584584, @jmg wrote:

In D26220#584528, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

In D26220#584195, @pnagato_protonmail.com 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.

In D26220#584584, @jmg wrote:

In D26220#584528, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

In D26220#584195, @pnagato_protonmail.com 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.

Skip sbuf_new_negative_test,implement sbuf_new_positive_test

Space after #include

Add new line and space after #include

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

Move duplicated code under x86/include

In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

In D26220#584195, @pnagato_protonmail.com 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?

Added the duplication to a new file

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