| Message ID | 20240912103151.1520254-2-usama.anjum@collabora.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] kselftests: mm: Fix wrong __NR_userfaultfd value | expand |
On 9/12/24 04:31, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > The userfaultfd is enabled in the config fragment of mm selftest suite. > It must always be present. If it isn't present, we should throw error > and not just skip. This would have helped us catch the test breakage. Please elaborate on this to help understand the what breakage was missed. Also this commit log doesn't look right to me. syscall() could fail for any reason. Do you mean to see skip is incorrect in this error leg? Please see comments below. > Adding this now to catch the future breakages. > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c > index bcc73b4e805c6..d83dda8edf62c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int init_uffd(void) > > uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); > if (uffd == -1) > - return uffd; > + ksft_exit_fail_perror("Userfaultfd syscall failed"); This looks wrong to me - Is missing config the only reason this syscall would fail? > > uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API; > uffdio_api.features = UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED | UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC | thanks, -- Shuah
On 9/12/24 10:10, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 9/12/24 04:31, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> The userfaultfd is enabled in the config fragment of mm selftest suite. >> It must always be present. If it isn't present, we should throw error >> and not just skip. This would have helped us catch the test breakage. > > Please elaborate on this to help understand the what breakage was > missed. > > Also this commit log doesn't look right to me. syscall() could > fail for any reason. Do you mean to see skip is incorrect in this > error leg? Please see comments below. > >> Adding this now to catch the future breakages. >> >> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >> index bcc73b4e805c6..d83dda8edf62c 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int init_uffd(void) >> uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); >> if (uffd == -1) >> - return uffd; >> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("Userfaultfd syscall failed"); > > This looks wrong to me - Is missing config the only reason this syscall > would fail? It should still skip if __NR_userfaultfd isn't supported on a release or an architecture. The real problem seems to be in main(): if (init_uffd()) ksft_exit_pass(); Why is this ksft_exit_pass()? Looks like further investigation is necessary to understand the problem and fix. thanks, -- Shuah
On 9/12/24 10:28 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 9/12/24 10:10, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 9/12/24 04:31, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> The userfaultfd is enabled in the config fragment of mm selftest suite. >>> It must always be present. If it isn't present, we should throw error >>> and not just skip. This would have helped us catch the test breakage. >> >> Please elaborate on this to help understand the what breakage was >> missed. >> >> Also this commit log doesn't look right to me. syscall() could >> fail for any reason. Do you mean to see skip is incorrect in this >> error leg? Please see comments below. >> >>> Adding this now to catch the future breakages. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >>> index bcc73b4e805c6..d83dda8edf62c 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c >>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int init_uffd(void) >>> uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | >>> UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); >>> if (uffd == -1) >>> - return uffd; >>> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("Userfaultfd syscall failed"); >> >> This looks wrong to me - Is missing config the only reason this syscall >> would fail? > > It should still skip if __NR_userfaultfd isn't supported on a release > or an architecture. > > The real problem seems to be in main(): > > if (init_uffd()) > ksft_exit_pass(); > > > Why is this ksft_exit_pass()? Looks like further investigation is > necessary to understand the problem and fix. Let's skip this patch as it'll create more noise on unsupported architectures than catching failures on supported architectures. > > thanks, > -- Shuah
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c index bcc73b4e805c6..d83dda8edf62c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int init_uffd(void) uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); if (uffd == -1) - return uffd; + ksft_exit_fail_perror("Userfaultfd syscall failed"); uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API; uffdio_api.features = UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED | UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC |
The userfaultfd is enabled in the config fragment of mm selftest suite. It must always be present. If it isn't present, we should throw error and not just skip. This would have helped us catch the test breakage. Adding this now to catch the future breakages. Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/mm/pagemap_ioctl.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)