library: introduced 'Item_table' validation provisions
The recent work on updating the <meminfo> and <vmstat> modules with some newly added linux fields reminded me (again) of a need for some mechanism guaranteeing that a header file agrees with the source file assumptions. Sadly, in the past, if a table entry was omitted or if the table and header are ordered differently, then the library would silently return the wrong results values or even potentially experience a SIGSEGV abnormal end. This patch offers a much needed development assist for ensuring that Item_table entries are synchronized with header file enumerators in terms of number plus order. It's intended solely for our use as libprocps evolves. Now, by activating ITEMTABLE_DEBUG, either directly or via ./configure CFLAGS='-DITEMTABLE_DEBUG', the number and order will be verified. It is envisioned that this feature will be used at least once prior to a release. Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
This commit is contained in:
35
proc/pids.c
35
proc/pids.c
@ -52,6 +52,13 @@
|
||||
#define STACKS_INCR 128 // amount reap stack allocations grow
|
||||
#define NEWOLD_INCR 128 // amt by which hist allocations grow
|
||||
|
||||
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
|
||||
this provision can be used to ensure that our Item_table was synchronized |
|
||||
with those enumerators found in the associated header file. It's intended |
|
||||
to only be used locally (& temporarily) at some point prior to a release! | */
|
||||
// #define ITEMTABLE_DEBUG //----------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
struct stacks_extent {
|
||||
int ext_numstacks;
|
||||
@ -357,7 +364,11 @@ typedef void (*SET_t)(struct pids_info *, struct pids_result *, proc_t *);
|
||||
typedef void (*FRE_t)(struct pids_result *);
|
||||
typedef int (*QSR_t)(const void *, const void *, void *);
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef ITEMTABLE_DEBUG
|
||||
#define RS(e) (SET_t)setNAME(e), PIDS_ ## e, STRINGIFY(PIDS_ ## e)
|
||||
#else
|
||||
#define RS(e) (SET_t)setNAME(e)
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
#define FF(t) (FRE_t)freNAME(t)
|
||||
#define QS(t) (QSR_t)srtNAME(t)
|
||||
#define TS(t) STRINGIFY(t)
|
||||
@ -369,6 +380,10 @@ typedef int (*QSR_t)(const void *, const void *, void *);
|
||||
* those 'enum pids_item' guys ! */
|
||||
static struct {
|
||||
SET_t setsfunc; // the actual result setting routine
|
||||
#ifdef ITEMTABLE_DEBUG
|
||||
int enumnumb; // enumerator (must match position!)
|
||||
char *enum2str; // enumerator name as a char* string
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
unsigned oldflags; // PROC_FILLxxxx flags for this item
|
||||
FRE_t freefunc; // free function for strings storage
|
||||
QSR_t sortfunc; // sort cmp func for a specific type
|
||||
@ -499,9 +514,6 @@ static struct {
|
||||
{ RS(VM_USED), f_status, NULL, QS(ul_int), 0, TS(ul_int) },
|
||||
{ RS(VSIZE_PGS), f_stat, NULL, QS(ul_int), 0, TS(ul_int) },
|
||||
{ RS(WCHAN_NAME), 0, FF(str), QS(str), 0, TS(str) }, // oldflags: tid already free
|
||||
|
||||
// dummy entry corresponding to PIDS_logical_end ...
|
||||
{ NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, 0, NULL }
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
/* please note,
|
||||
@ -1116,6 +1128,23 @@ PROCPS_EXPORT int procps_pids_new (
|
||||
double uptime_secs;
|
||||
int pgsz;
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef ITEMTABLE_DEBUG
|
||||
int i, failed = 0;
|
||||
for (i = 0; i < MAXTABLE(Item_table); i++) {
|
||||
if (i != Item_table[i].enumnumb) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "%s: enum/table error: Item_table[%d] was %s, but its value is %d\n"
|
||||
, __FILE__, i, Item_table[i].enum2str, Item_table[i].enumnumb);
|
||||
failed = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (i != PIDS_logical_end) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "%s: PIDS_logical_end is %d, expected %d\n"
|
||||
, __FILE__, PIDS_logical_end, i);
|
||||
failed = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (failed) _Exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
|
||||
if (info == NULL || *info != NULL)
|
||||
return -EINVAL;
|
||||
if (!(p = calloc(1, sizeof(struct pids_info))))
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user