Re: kern/47974: udf tests fail due to interaction with rump

[Nicolas Joly <njoly%pasteur.fr@localhost>]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:45:00PM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/47974; it has been noted by GNATS.
> 
> From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: kern/47974: udf tests fail due to interaction with rump
> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:43:24 +0200
> 
>  It dies here:
>  
>  Breakpoint 1, udf_mount (mp=0x7f7ff77aa000, path=0x416014 "/mnt", 
>      data=0x7f7ff7b6e0d8, data_len=0x7f7fffffd8a8)
>      at /usr/src/sys/rump/fs/lib/libudf/../../../../fs/udf/udf_vfsops.c:317
>  317     {
>  (gdb) n
>  318             struct lwp *l = curlwp;
>  (gdb) 
>  326             if (*data_len < sizeof *args)
>  (gdb) print *data_len
>  $1 = 8
>  (gdb) print sizeof *args
>  $2 = 80
>  
>  and does:
>  
>  326             if (*data_len < sizeof *args)
>  327                     return EINVAL;
>  
>  
>  I can't find my way through the fstest macros right now 
> sizeof(udf_mount_args)
>  vs. sizeof(udf_mount_args*) somewhere?

Had a quick look into fstest_udf.c, and udftestargs definition looks
strange :

struct udftestargs {
        struct ufs_args ta_uargs;
        char ta_devpath[MAXPATHLEN];
        char ta_imgpath[MAXPATHLEN];
};

Shouldn't ta_uargs be of type udf_args not ufs_args ?

-- 
Nicolas Joly

Biology IT Center
Institut Pasteur, Paris.