Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 1042 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 1042.

Report 1042 Actions

    Problem Report Number 1042
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0281
    Raised 2001-01-25 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V3 (UNIX 98)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 5.1.1
    Test Identification XOPEN.cmd/ipcs 1078, 1080
    Problem Summary PG4C.00133 The ipcs output shown in the test result does not match the XCU5 specification as amended by corrigendum U032.
    Problem Text

    This test may fail on implementations because the incorrect shared
    memory segment is being checked in the test.

    The test is attempting to verify that no-entry is displayed when a
    specific shared memory segment (257 in this case) has never been
    attached for the ATIME and DTIME fields.

    During the setup of the test, two shared memory segments are created,
    shm_ID, and shm2_ID. The shm_ID is never attached, and shm2_ID IS
    attached and used once as shown in this ipcs_startup() code below:

    ipcs_shmget="Shmget -Key $keyvalue -Size 1024 -Permissions 0624"
    ...
    ipcs_shmget2="Shmget -Key $keyvalue2 -Size 1024 -Permissions 0624 -Use"
    ...
    #
    # Setup shared memory that has not been attached/detatched
    #
    shm_ID=$($ipcs_shmget & echo $! >ipcs_pid.tmp)
    ...
    #
    # Setup shared memory that has been attached and detached
    #
    shm2_ID=$($ipcs_shmget2 & echo $! >ipcs_pid.tmp)

    In tp 1078 and 1080, the check_field command is incorrectly called to
    check column 11 and 12 for the shm2_ATIME and shm2_DTIME fields rather
    than for the correct shm_ATIME and shm_DTIME fields.

    This results in a comparison with the wrong shared memory segment, the
    fields do not match, and the test fails.

    Specifically, in tp 1078, change

    check_field 11 "$shm2_ATIME" "$(select_id $shm2_ID "$lines")" > $CT_STDOUT
    2> $CT_STDERR

    to

    check_field 11 "$shm_ATIME" "$(select_id $shm_ID "$lines")" > $CT_STDOUT
    2> $CT_STDERR

    In tp1080, change,

    check_field 12 "$shm2_DTIME" "$(select_id $shm2_ID "$lines")" > $CT_STDOUT
    2> $CT_STDERR

    to

    check_field 12 "$shm_DTIME" "$(select_id $shm_ID "$lines")" > $CT_STDOUT
    2> $CT_STDERR

    Test Output

    ***********************************************************************
    /tset/XOPEN.cmd/ipcs/ipcs.ex 1 Failed

    Test Information:
    Assertion #1078 (A): ATIME is %d:%2.2d:%2.2d
    TEST: all lines
    TEST: shared memory 257
    ERROR: Field 11 did not match regular expression:
    no-entry
    Detail line contained:
    m 257 0xbeefbef0 --rw--w-r-- vsctest users 0 1024 133434
    <LC> 133434 4:44:12 4:44:12 4:44:12
    Expected exit code = 0; Received 1

    ***********************************************************************

    ***********************************************************************
    /tset/XOPEN.cmd/ipcs/ipcs.ex 1 Failed

    Test Information:
    Assertion #1080 (A): DTIME is %d:%2.2d:%2.2d
    TEST: all lines
    TEST: shared memory 257
    ERROR: Field 12 did not match regular expression:
    no-entry
    Detail line contained:
    m 257 0xbeefbef0 --rw--w-r-- vsctest users 0 1024 133434
    <LC> 133434 4:44:12 4:44:12 4:44:12
    Expected exit code = 0; Received 1

    ***********************************************************************

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    It is true that there is a fault in this test, however the test output
    also shows that the implementation is not compliant. The requirements
    for output of the ipcs command were amended in corrigendum U032 (March
    1998). On systems which correctly implement the amended specification
    this test fails differently. The failure is covered by PIN4C.00045.

    It is recommended that this request is refused.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    This request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority