On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
cleanup the code to satisfy coding styles.
cc: Dave Hansen dave.hansen@intel.com cc: Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ram Pai linuxram@us.ibm.com
tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 81 ++++++++++++++------------ 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c index 6054093..6fdd8f5 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
- There are examples in here of:
- how to set protection keys on memory
- how to set/clear bits in pkey registers (the rights register)
- how to set/clear bits in Protection Key registers (the rights register)
I don't think CodingStyle says to do this. :)
- how to handle SEGV_PKUERR signals and extract pkey-relevant
- information from the siginfo
@@ -13,13 +13,18 @@
- prefault pages in at malloc, or not
- protect MPX bounds tables with protection keys?
- make sure VMA splitting/merging is working correctly
- OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()), so make sure it is immune to pkeys
- look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA but "freed" back to the kernel
- do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make sure the pkey sticks
- OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()),
so make sure it is immune to pkeys
- look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA
but "freed" back to the kernel
- do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make
sure the pkey sticks
Ram, I'm not sure where this came from, but this looks horrid. Please don't do this to the file
- Compile like this:
- gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
- gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
- gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99
-pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
- gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99
*/
-pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
Please just leave this, or remove it from the file. It was a long line so it could be copied and pasted, this ruins that.
#define _GNU_SOURCE #include <errno.h> @@ -251,26 +256,11 @@ void signal_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *vucontext) dprintf1("signal pkey_reg from pkey_reg: %016lx\n", __rdpkey_reg()); dprintf1("pkey from siginfo: %jx\n", siginfo_pkey); *(u64 *)pkey_reg_ptr = 0x00000000;
- dprintf1("WARNING: set PRKU=0 to allow faulting instruction to continue\n");
- dprintf1("WARNING: set PKEY_REG=0 to allow faulting instruction "
"to continue\n");
- if (trapno == 14) {
fprintf(stderr,"ERROR: In signal handler, page fault, trapno = %d, ip = %016lx\n",trapno, ip);fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",(unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);exit(1);- } else {
fprintf(stderr, "unexpected trap %d! at 0x%lx\n", trapno, ip);fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",(unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);exit(2);- }
- dprint_in_signal = 0;
}
I think this is just randomly removing code now.
I think you should probably just drop this patch. It's not really brining anything useful. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html