From patchwork Tue Mar 31 09:58:10 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sandipan Das X-Patchwork-Id: 1264639 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48s51X0Y6Pz9sPJ for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:20:16 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48s51X0HL8zDqvn for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:20:16 +1100 (AEDT) X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=sandipan@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48s4Y826lczDqW6 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:59:08 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02V9iuTe050920 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:04 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3043g7090m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:58:52 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:58:48 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 02V9wuxE59703346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:56 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E664C040; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2A24C046; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fir03.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.121.59.65]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandipan Das To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: [PATCH v19 09/24] selftests/vm/pkeys: Fix assertion in pkey_disable_set/clear() Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:28:10 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20033109-0008-0000-0000-00000367B4D3 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20033109-0009-0000-0000-00004A8938E8 Message-Id: <8240665131e43fc93eed4eea8194676c1ea39a7f.1585646528.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-03-31_03:2020-03-30, 2020-03-31 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=567 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=1 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003310086 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, fweimer@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, msuchanek@suse.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, bauerman@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" From: Ram Pai In some cases, a pkey's bits need not necessarily change in a way that the value of the pkey register increases when performing a pkey_disable_set() or decreases when performing a pkey_disable_clear(). For example, on powerpc, if a pkey's current state is PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS and we perform a pkey_write_disable() on it, the bits still remain the same. We will observe something similar when the pkey's current state is 0 and a pkey_access_enable() is performed on it. Either case would cause some assertions to fail. This fixes the problem. cc: Dave Hansen cc: Florian Weimer Signed-off-by: Ram Pai Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das Acked-by: Dave Hansen --- tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c index 4b1ddb526228d..7fd52d5c4bfdd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016llx\n", __func__, pkey, read_pkey_reg()); if (flags) - pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg); + pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg); dprintf1("END<---%s(%d, 0x%x)\n", __func__, pkey, flags); } @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016llx\n", __func__, pkey, read_pkey_reg()); if (flags) - assert(read_pkey_reg() < orig_pkey_reg); + assert(read_pkey_reg() <= orig_pkey_reg); } void pkey_write_allow(int pkey)