From patchwork Fri Jan 17 12:49:48 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sandipan Das X-Patchwork-Id: 208936 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DEBC33CB1 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2572F24656 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726827AbgAQMuk (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:50:40 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:5288 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726761AbgAQMuj (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:50:39 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00HClFE9024381 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:50:39 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xk0qu3ygh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:50:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:36 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) 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) Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:31 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 00HCoT9P54722788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:29 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0575205A; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fir03.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.121.59.65]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E8E5204E; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:50:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandipan Das To: shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, fweimer@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, bauerman@linux.ibm.com, msuchanek@suse.de, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: [PATCH v16 09/23] selftests/vm/pkeys: Fix assertion in pkey_disable_set/clear() Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:19:48 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20011712-0008-0000-0000-0000034A4C5C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20011712-0009-0000-0000-00004A6AA90D Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-17_03:2020-01-16,2020-01-17 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=571 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001170102 Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org 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 --- 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 7440f6fa7be3..e666b5d2aeeb 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016lx\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); } @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016lx\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)