| Message ID | 20240809095505.352377-1-pvorel@suse.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] pkey01: Fix TBROK due missing results | expand |
Hi Petr, On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:55 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE is ppc64le specific test. Due messages being > TINFO test on other archs fails: > > tst_test.c:1498: TBROK: Test 2 haven't reported results! > Ah yes, I think of why I used tst_brk in my previous patch. > > Changing messages to TCONF. Also exit loop on !execute_supported TCONF > (no need to have 30x TCONF with the same error message, because we have > PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE last). The other TCONF (on MAP_HUGETLB) must be > repeated. > Agreed. > Fixes: d2b8a476c2 ("pkey01: Adding test for PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE") > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > --- > Hi Li, all, > > if you don't like PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE having to be the last, we can > just have 30x TCONF (just to change both TINFO to TCONF). Whatever you > prefer. > It's okay, I guess PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE is already the last feature for mem protection, READ, WRITE, EXEC, and I don't expect there will be a new permission to appear :). Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Hi Li, all, > Hi Petr, > On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:55 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > > PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE is ppc64le specific test. Due messages being > > TINFO test on other archs fails: > > tst_test.c:1498: TBROK: Test 2 haven't reported results! > Ah yes, I think of why I used tst_brk in my previous patch. > > Changing messages to TCONF. Also exit loop on !execute_supported TCONF > > (no need to have 30x TCONF with the same error message, because we have > > PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE last). The other TCONF (on MAP_HUGETLB) must be > > repeated. > Agreed. > > Fixes: d2b8a476c2 ("pkey01: Adding test for PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE") > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > > --- > > Hi Li, all, > > if you don't like PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE having to be the last, we can > > just have 30x TCONF (just to change both TINFO to TCONF). Whatever you > > prefer. > It's okay, I guess PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE is already the last feature > for mem protection, READ, WRITE, EXEC, and I don't expect there will > be a new permission to appear :). Thanks for a quick ack, merged (with added comment for return value in the code). Kind regards, Petr > Feel free to add: > Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pkeys/pkey01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pkeys/pkey01.c index e5db2c253c..a4b73c4056 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pkeys/pkey01.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pkeys/pkey01.c @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static struct tcase { } tcases[] = { {PERM_NAME(PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS)}, {PERM_NAME(PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE)}, - {PERM_NAME(PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE)}, + {PERM_NAME(PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE)} /* keep it the last */ }; static void setup(void) @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static size_t function_size(void (*func)(void)) return (size_t)(end - start + 1); } -static void pkey_test(struct tcase *tc, struct mmap_param *mpa) +static int pkey_test(struct tcase *tc, struct mmap_param *mpa) { pid_t pid; char *buffer; @@ -165,13 +165,13 @@ static void pkey_test(struct tcase *tc, struct mmap_param *mpa) size_t func_size = 0; if (!execute_supported && (tc->access_rights == PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE)) { - tst_res(TINFO, "skip PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE test"); - return; + tst_res(TCONF, "skip PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE test"); + return 1; } if (!tst_hugepages && (mpa->flags & MAP_HUGETLB)) { - tst_res(TINFO, "Skip test on (%s) buffer", flag_to_str(mpa->flags)); - return; + tst_res(TCONF, "Skip test on (%s) buffer", flag_to_str(mpa->flags)); + return 0; } if (fd == 0) @@ -253,6 +253,8 @@ static void pkey_test(struct tcase *tc, struct mmap_param *mpa) if (pkey_free(pkey) == -1) tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "pkey_free failed"); + + return 0; } static void verify_pkey(unsigned int i) @@ -265,7 +267,8 @@ static void verify_pkey(unsigned int i) for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(mmap_params); j++) { mpa = &mmap_params[j]; - pkey_test(tc, mpa); + if (pkey_test(tc, mpa)) + break; } }
PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE is ppc64le specific test. Due messages being TINFO test on other archs fails: tst_test.c:1498: TBROK: Test 2 haven't reported results! Changing messages to TCONF. Also exit loop on !execute_supported TCONF (no need to have 30x TCONF with the same error message, because we have PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE last). The other TCONF (on MAP_HUGETLB) must be repeated. Fixes: d2b8a476c2 ("pkey01: Adding test for PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE") Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> --- Hi Li, all, if you don't like PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE having to be the last, we can just have 30x TCONF (just to change both TINFO to TCONF). Whatever you prefer. Kind regards, Petr testcases/kernel/syscalls/pkeys/pkey01.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)