Re: [PATCH] selftest: rtc: Add to check rtc alarm status for alarm related test

[Joseph Jang]

On 2024/5/17 3:19 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 16/05/2024 19:28:47-0700, Joseph Jang wrote:
> > In alarm_wkalm_set and alarm_wkalm_set_minute test, they use different
> > ioctl (RTC_ALM_SET/RTC_WKALM_SET) for alarm feature detection. They will
> > skip testing if RTC_ALM_SET/RTC_WKALM_SET ioctl returns an EINVAL error
> > code. This design may miss detecting real problems when the
> > efi.set_wakeup_time() return errors and then RTC_ALM_SET/RTC_WKALM_SET
> > ioctl returns an EINVAL error code with RTC_FEATURE_ALARM enabled.
> >
> > In order to make rtctest more explicit and robust, we propose to use
> > RTC_PARAM_GET ioctl interface to check rtc alarm feature state before
> > running alarm related tests. If the kernel does not support RTC_PARAM_GET
> > ioctl interface, we will fallback to check the presence of "alarm" in
> > /proc/driver/rtc.
> >
> > The rtctest requires the read permission on /dev/rtc0. The rtctest will
> > be skipped if the /dev/rtc0 is not readable.
>
> This change as to be separated. Also, I'm not sure what happened with
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230717175251.54390-1-atulpant.linux@xxxxxxxxx/

I apply above patch and seems like still cannot detect the read
permission on /dev/rtc0. I guess the 'F_OK' just check the `/dev/rtc0`
was there.

I share the error logs by following for your reference.

TAP version 13
1..1
# timeout set to 210
# selftests: rtc: rtctest
# TAP version 13
# 1..8
# # Starting 8 tests from 1 test cases.
# #  RUN           rtc.date_read ...
# # rtctest.c:53:date_read:Expected -1 (-1) != self->fd (-1)
# # date_read: Test terminated by assertion
# #          FAIL  rtc.date_read

Not sure if we could skip the testing by following change ?

FIXTURE_SETUP(rtc) {
+     if (access(rtc_file, R_OK) != 0)
+             SKIP(return, "Skipping test since cannot access %s, 
perhaps miss sudo",
+                      rtc_file)
+
      self->fd = open(rtc_file, O_RDONLY);
}

And I make sure we need root permission to access `/dev/rtc0`.



> > Requires commit 101ca8d05913b ("rtc: efi: Enable SET/GET WAKEUP services
> > as optional")
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jeremy Szu <jszu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew R. Ochs <mochs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Joseph Jang <jjang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/selftests/rtc/Makefile  |  2 +-
> >   tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> >   2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/Makefile
> > index 55198ecc04db..6e3a98fb24ba 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/Makefile
> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >   # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > -CFLAGS += -O3 -Wl,-no-as-needed -Wall
> > +CFLAGS += -O3 -Wl,-no-as-needed -Wall -I../../../../usr/include/
> >   LDLIBS += -lrt -lpthread -lm
> >   
> >   TEST_GEN_PROGS = rtctest
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c
> > index 63ce02d1d5cc..aa47b17fbd1a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >   #include <errno.h>
> >   #include <fcntl.h>
> >   #include <linux/rtc.h>
> > +#include <stdbool.h>
> >   #include <stdio.h>
> >   #include <stdlib.h>
> >   #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > @@ -24,12 +25,17 @@
> >   #define READ_LOOP_SLEEP_MS 11
> >   
> >   static char *rtc_file = "/dev/rtc0";
> > +static char *rtc_procfs = "/proc/driver/rtc";
> >   
> >   FIXTURE(rtc) {
> >   	int fd;
> >   };
> >   
> >   FIXTURE_SETUP(rtc) {
> > +	if (access(rtc_file, R_OK) != 0)
> > +		SKIP(return, "Skipping test since cannot access %s, perhaps miss sudo",
> > +			 rtc_file);
>
> > +
> >   	self->fd = open(rtc_file, O_RDONLY);
> >   }
> >   
> > @@ -82,6 +88,36 @@ static void nanosleep_with_retries(long ns)
> >   	}
> >   }
> >   
> > +static bool is_rtc_alarm_supported(int fd)
> > +{
> > +	struct rtc_param param = { 0 };
> > +	int rc;
> > +	char buf[1024] = { 0 };
> > +
> > +	/* Validate kernel reflects unsupported RTC alarm state */
> > +	param.param = RTC_PARAM_FEATURES;
> > +	param.index = 0;
> > +	rc = ioctl(fd, RTC_PARAM_GET, &param);
> > +	if (rc < 0) {
> > +		/* Fallback to read rtc procfs */
> > +		fd = open(rtc_procfs, O_RDONLY);
>
> I think I was clear on the previous thread, no new users of the procfs
> interface. You can carry this n your own tree but that can't be
> upstream.

Okay ~ If we use RTC_PARAM_GET ioctl to detect rtc feature only, not
sure if that is okay for upstream ?

Thank you,
Joseph.