+Dave Hansen
On 31/07/2025 18:01, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
The while loop doesn't execute and following warning gets generated:
protection_keys.c:561:15: warning: code will never be executed [-Wunreachable-code] int rpkey = alloc_random_pkey();
Let's enable the while loop such that it gets executed nr_iterations times. Simplify the code a bit as well.
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum usama.anjum@collabora.com
tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c index 23ebec367015f..6281d4c61b50e 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c @@ -557,13 +557,11 @@ int mprotect_pkey(void *ptr, size_t size, unsigned long orig_prot, int nr_iterations = random() % 100; int ret;
- while (0) {
- while (nr_iterations-- >= 0) {
Now that is a good catch! I had never realised this whole loop was dead code...
The question is whether we really want it. This code looked exactly this way when it was merged [1] so it has never been run. It looks suspiciously like debug code.
Dave, should we just remove this?
- Kevin
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160729163024.FC5A0C2D@viggo.jf.intel.com/T/#u
int rpkey = alloc_random_pkey(); ret = sys_mprotect_pkey(ptr, size, orig_prot, pkey); dprintf1("sys_mprotect_pkey(%p, %zx, prot=0x%lx, pkey=%ld) ret: %d\n", ptr, size, orig_prot, pkey, ret);
if (nr_iterations-- < 0)break;dprintf1("%s()::%d, ret: %d pkey_reg: 0x%016llx" " shadow: 0x%016llx\n",