| Message ID | 20200901092719.9918-1-amit.kachhap@arm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | kselftest: arm64/mte: Tests for user-space MTE | expand |
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:57:14PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..ac311919567d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c > @@ -0,0 +1,374 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +// Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Limited > + > +#include <fcntl.h> > +#include <sched.h> > +#include <signal.h> > +#include <stdio.h> > +#include <stdlib.h> > +#include <unistd.h> > + > +#include <linux/auxvec.h> > +#include <sys/auxv.h> > +#include <sys/mman.h> > +#include <sys/prctl.h> > + > +#include <asm/hwcap.h> > + > +#include "kselftest.h" > +#include "mte_common_util.h" > +#include "mte_def.h" > + > +/* The temp file must be created in a tmpfs filesystem */ > +#ifdef ANDROID > +# define TEMPFILENAME "/storage/tmp_XXXXXX" > +#else > +# define TEMPFILENAME "/tmp/tmp_XXXXXX" > +#endif That's not guaranteed to be tmpfs (it's not on my Debian install). I think you'd have a better chance with /dev/shm/tmp_XXXXXX.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:57:14PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..91af6d1293f8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S > @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +/* Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Limited */ > + > +#include "mte_def.h" > + > +#define ENTRY(name) \ > + .globl name ;\ > + .p2align 2;\ > + .type name, @function ;\ > +name: > + > +#define ENDPROC(name) \ > + .size name, .-name ; > + > + .text > +/* > + * mte_insert_random_tag: Insert random tag and different from > + * the orginal tag if source pointer has it. > + * Input: > + * x0 - source pointer with a tag/no-tag > + * Return: > + * x0 - pointer with random tag > + */ > +ENTRY(mte_insert_random_tag) > + mov x1, #0x0 > + gmi x1, x0, x1 > + irg x0, x0, x1 > + ret > +ENDPROC(mte_insert_random_tag) What was the reason for gmi here? The test fails when you have an include mask of 0x8000 (exclude mask 0x7fff) and x0 has tag 0xf. In this case we exclude the only allowed tag here, so the CPU falls back to the default tag 0. You can (a) stop the check_multiple_included_tags() earlier to have two allowed tags here, (b) clear the pointer old tag so that you don't end up in this scenario or (c) simply remove the gmi. My preference is the latter, we don't test the hardware here, we only want to check whether the kernel sets the GCR_EL1 correctly. BTW, you also remove mov x1, #0, just: irg x0, x0, xzr -- Catalin
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:57:14PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote: > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..91af6d1293f8 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_helper.S > > @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > > +/* Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Limited */ > > + > > +#include "mte_def.h" > > + > > +#define ENTRY(name) \ > > + .globl name ;\ > > + .p2align 2;\ > > + .type name, @function ;\ > > +name: > > + > > +#define ENDPROC(name) \ > > + .size name, .-name ; > > + > > + .text > > +/* > > + * mte_insert_random_tag: Insert random tag and different from > > + * the orginal tag if source pointer has it. > > + * Input: > > + * x0 - source pointer with a tag/no-tag > > + * Return: > > + * x0 - pointer with random tag > > + */ > > +ENTRY(mte_insert_random_tag) > > + mov x1, #0x0 > > + gmi x1, x0, x1 > > + irg x0, x0, x1 > > + ret > > +ENDPROC(mte_insert_random_tag) > > What was the reason for gmi here? The test fails when you have an > include mask of 0x8000 (exclude mask 0x7fff) and x0 has tag 0xf. In this > case we exclude the only allowed tag here, so the CPU falls back to the > default tag 0. > > You can (a) stop the check_multiple_included_tags() earlier to have two > allowed tags here, (b) clear the pointer old tag so that you don't end > up in this scenario or (c) simply remove the gmi. My preference is the > latter, we don't test the hardware here, we only want to check whether > the kernel sets the GCR_EL1 correctly. > > BTW, you also remove mov x1, #0, just: > > irg x0, x0, xzr Ah, removing gmi breaks the check_user_mem test as it occasionally gets the same tag when it expects to be different. I'll leave this to you to fix, maybe use two different functions, one with gmi and another without. In addition, could you please add the PR_MTE_* definitions and PROT_MTE to a header file in the MTE kselftests (mte-def.h maybe)? They should be bracketed with #ifndef ... #endif. The reason is that we'd like to queue these patches on their own branch on top of vanilla 5.9-rc3 rather than on top of for-next/mte. Thanks. -- Catalin