On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 09:21:50AM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:15:17AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:49:31PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
When compiling the pointer masking tests with -Wall this warning is present:
pointer_masking.c: In function ‘test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl’: pointer_masking.c:203:9: warning: ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’ declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result] 203 | pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pointer_masking.c:208:9: warning: ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’ declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result] 208 | pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
I came across this on riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04).
Fix this by checking that the number of bytes written equal the expected number of bytes written.
Fixes: 7470b5afd150 ("riscv: selftests: Add a pointer masking test") Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins charlie@rivosinc.com
Changes in v4:
- Skip sysctl_enabled test if first pwrite failed
- Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241205-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v3-1-5...
Changes in v3:
- Fix sysctl enabled test case (Drew/Alex)
- Move pwrite err condition into goto (Drew)
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v2-1-1...
Changes in v2:
- I had ret != 2 for testing, I changed it to be ret != 1.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v1-1-e...
tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c index dee41b7ee3e3..759445d5f265 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void) { char value; int fd;
- int ret;
- char *err_pwrite_msg = "failed to write to /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr_disabled\n";
ksft_print_msg("Testing tagged address ABI sysctl\n"); @@ -200,18 +202,32 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void) } value = '1';
- pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
- ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
- if (ret != 1) {
ksft_test_result_skip(err_pwrite_msg);It seems like we should have a better way to keep the count balanced than to require a ksft_test_result_skip() call for each test on each error path. Every time we add a test we'll have to go add skips everywhere else.
It's only a problem if there are multiple tests in a single test function like there is here. Since the tests disable then reenable it makes sense to have them in one function, but does require us to do the skipping.
I guess it is sufficient to leave out the skip here, if the first one fails we can just continue and let the second one fail too.
- Charlie
goto err_pwrite;- }
- ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == -EINVAL, "sysctl disabled\n");
value = '0';
- pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
- ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
- if (ret != 1)
goto err_pwrite;- ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == 0, "sysctl enabled\n");
set_tagged_addr_ctrl(0, false); close(fd);
- return;
+err_pwrite:
- close(fd);
- ksft_test_result_fail(err_pwrite_msg);
}
I don't think the goto reduces much code or improves readability much. A wrapper function should do better. I was thinking something like
static bool pwrite_wrapper(int fd, void *buf, size_t count, const char *msg) { int ret = pwrite(fd, buf, count, 0); if (ret != count) { ksft_perror(msg); return false; } return true; }
value = '1'; if (!pwrite_wrapper(fd, &value, 1, "write '1'")) ksft_test_result_fail(...);
value = '0'; if (!pwrite_wrapper(fd, &value, 1, "write '0'")) ksft_test_result_fail(...);
Will do, thanks!
- Charlie
static void test_tagged_addr_abi_pmlen(int pmlen)
base-commit: 40384c840ea1944d7c5a392e8975ed088ecf0b37 change-id: 20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-3860e4f35429 --
- Charlie
Thanks, drew