From patchwork Fri Jul 12 08:46:25 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Muhammad Usama Anjum X-Patchwork-Id: 13731418 Received: from madrid.collaboradmins.com (madrid.collaboradmins.com [46.235.227.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9B21474D8; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720774052; cv=none; b=UF3kQEKJ69qJ2OCCPoJkkWJ57cPiVmHI13eLOBSC6DSpgaMWjrmy02O5TATFJWSeRlUrEUhmFDpf+C4YtdH0hhm2I3t7r4VK+JbzllQs33oByEdFeYWT0ZJkp3WRywZbyEsLX2k5qk6/M1YZojFnjcla4+RUbEIhBStGAY1qx54= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720774052; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JBnSgEtjvbqAYAYT7HqqfFOQJ7n55CtQ798gF9GpfEc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=t4E0ISK1y7uOHLbsndF+TeRc/NyGaVGE5jGVdfLcggBfxAj1/c3rd8R6fjTLDURThOuNsatdxg1jsyPKpI5gpPz74IF0DxK590C4vjOkXphQ5JJQBOAUXxXMvELTnqOq3J41aE5xmkCkvZqJHrHky7gf0RdINKh6MwtgMRcdU/k= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=PBzRRGF3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="PBzRRGF3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1720774048; bh=JBnSgEtjvbqAYAYT7HqqfFOQJ7n55CtQ798gF9GpfEc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PBzRRGF3Dl11CaD6DbX1JSpLGw73n0X2bPd94QBh5e6DWu3ck8uBrs2Ytqx3i7nuW 4zds/x/Iommi6hM0o9UtH4P3f8aHe2qc0/UTLNc+pc65LbO3sMkhQxw7wuD0sw1d9W HGqr441ByQ2aaKd9P9qlgcafCYrpdKFu0Rc74wGu9OxmgEmOwGgtDMwkaBJb2u0BUv XrqNFWyezZzkGDh+rJ2E+wChJTOElylo4oMqjJejsbKysEnc3qGnNk/YX42aT3wJfQ xMzJi5/ScVa59t8Yj5pOQ5TO250Q644cGTI0BSzo1GL5VODux1o/WZrKgHskunrY2F YiP8UuTOIC+TA== Received: from localhost.localdomain (ec2-34-240-57-77.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com [34.240.57.77]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: usama.anjum) by madrid.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 472D237821DB; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:47:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Muhammad Usama Anjum To: Shuah Khan , Muhammad Usama Anjum , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: kernel@collabora.com, "Chang S . Bae" , Binbin Wu , Ingo Molnar , "Kirill A . Shutemov" Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] selftests: x86: entry_from_vm86: remove manual counting and increase maintainability Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:46:25 +0500 Message-Id: <20240712084625.297249-5-usama.anjum@collabora.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240712084625.297249-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> References: <20240712084625.297249-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 - Remove manual pass/fail tests counting - Increase readability - Print details about errno if error occurs - Print logs in standard format Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum --- tools/testing/selftests/x86/entry_from_vm86.c | 109 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/entry_from_vm86.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/entry_from_vm86.c index d1e919b0c1dc8..a4efa4588e6f8 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/entry_from_vm86.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/entry_from_vm86.c @@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ #include #include #include +#include "../kselftest.h" static unsigned long load_addr = 0x10000; -static int nerrs = 0; static void sethandler(int sig, void (*handler)(int, siginfo_t *, void *), int flags) @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static void sethandler(int sig, void (*handler)(int, siginfo_t *, void *), sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO | flags; sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask); if (sigaction(sig, &sa, 0)) - err(1, "sigaction"); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("sigaction"); } static void clearhandler(int sig) @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static void clearhandler(int sig) sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL; sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask); if (sigaction(sig, &sa, 0)) - err(1, "sigaction"); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("sigaction"); } static sig_atomic_t got_signal; @@ -56,10 +56,8 @@ static void sighandler(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ctx_void) ucontext_t *ctx = (ucontext_t*)ctx_void; if (ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EFL] & X86_EFLAGS_VM || - (ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_CS] & 3) != 3) { - printf("[FAIL]\tSignal frame should not reflect vm86 mode\n"); - nerrs++; - } + (ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_CS] & 3) != 3) + ksft_test_result_fail("Signal frame should not reflect vm86 mode\n"); const char *signame; if (sig == SIGSEGV) @@ -69,9 +67,9 @@ static void sighandler(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ctx_void) else signame = "unexpected signal"; - printf("[INFO]\t%s: FLAGS = 0x%lx, CS = 0x%hx\n", signame, - (unsigned long)ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EFL], - (unsigned short)ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_CS]); + ksft_test_result_pass("%s: FLAGS = 0x%lx, CS = 0x%hx\n", signame, + (unsigned long)ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EFL], + (unsigned short)ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_CS]); got_signal = 1; } @@ -137,13 +135,13 @@ static bool do_test(struct vm86plus_struct *v86, unsigned long eip, { long ret; - printf("[RUN]\t%s from vm86 mode\n", text); + ksft_print_msg("%s from vm86 mode\n", text); v86->regs.eip = eip; ret = vm86(VM86_ENTER, v86); if (ret == -1 && (errno == ENOSYS || errno == EPERM)) { - printf("[SKIP]\tvm86 %s\n", - errno == ENOSYS ? "not supported" : "not allowed"); + ksft_test_result_skip("vm86 %s\n", + errno == ENOSYS ? "not supported" : "not allowed"); return false; } @@ -159,29 +157,27 @@ static bool do_test(struct vm86plus_struct *v86, unsigned long eip, else sprintf(trapname, "%d", trapno); - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to #%s\n", trapname); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to #%s\n", trapname); } else if (VM86_TYPE(ret) == VM86_UNKNOWN) { - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to unhandled GP fault\n"); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to unhandled GP fault\n"); } else if (VM86_TYPE(ret) == VM86_TRAP) { - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to a trap (arg=%ld)\n", - VM86_ARG(ret)); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to a trap (arg=%ld)\n", + VM86_ARG(ret)); } else if (VM86_TYPE(ret) == VM86_SIGNAL) { - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to a signal\n"); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to a signal\n"); } else if (VM86_TYPE(ret) == VM86_STI) { - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to STI\n"); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to STI\n"); } else { - printf("[INFO]\tExited vm86 mode due to type %ld, arg %ld\n", - VM86_TYPE(ret), VM86_ARG(ret)); + ksft_print_msg("Exited vm86 mode due to type %ld, arg %ld\n", + VM86_TYPE(ret), VM86_ARG(ret)); } if (rettype == -1 || - (VM86_TYPE(ret) == rettype && VM86_ARG(ret) == retarg)) { - printf("[OK]\tReturned correctly\n"); - } else { - printf("[FAIL]\tIncorrect return reason (started at eip = 0x%lx, ended at eip = 0x%lx)\n", eip, v86->regs.eip); - nerrs++; - } - + (VM86_TYPE(ret) == rettype && VM86_ARG(ret) == retarg)) + ksft_test_result_pass("Returned correctly\n"); + else + ksft_test_result_fail("Incorrect return reason (started at eip = 0x%lx, ended at eip = 0x%lx)\n", + eip, v86->regs.eip); return true; } @@ -215,26 +211,20 @@ void do_umip_tests(struct vm86plus_struct *vm86, unsigned char *test_mem) /* Results when using register operands */ msw3 = *(unsigned short *)(test_mem + 2080); - printf("[INFO]\tResult from SMSW:[0x%04x]\n", msw1); - printf("[INFO]\tResult from SIDT: limit[0x%04x]base[0x%08lx]\n", - idt1.limit, idt1.base); - printf("[INFO]\tResult from SGDT: limit[0x%04x]base[0x%08lx]\n", - gdt1.limit, gdt1.base); + ksft_print_msg("Result from SMSW:[0x%04x]\n", msw1); + ksft_print_msg("Result from SIDT: limit[0x%04x]base[0x%08lx]\n", + idt1.limit, idt1.base); + ksft_print_msg("Result from SGDT: limit[0x%04x]base[0x%08lx]\n", + gdt1.limit, gdt1.base); - if (msw1 != msw2 || msw1 != msw3) - printf("[FAIL]\tAll the results of SMSW should be the same.\n"); - else - printf("[PASS]\tAll the results from SMSW are identical.\n"); + ksft_test_result((msw1 == msw2 && msw1 == msw3), + "All the results from SMSW are identical.\n"); - if (memcmp(&gdt1, &gdt2, sizeof(gdt1))) - printf("[FAIL]\tAll the results of SGDT should be the same.\n"); - else - printf("[PASS]\tAll the results from SGDT are identical.\n"); + ksft_test_result(!memcmp(&gdt1, &gdt2, sizeof(gdt1)), + "All the results from SGDT are identical.\n"); - if (memcmp(&idt1, &idt2, sizeof(idt1))) - printf("[FAIL]\tAll the results of SIDT should be the same.\n"); - else - printf("[PASS]\tAll the results from SIDT are identical.\n"); + ksft_test_result(!memcmp(&idt1, &idt2, sizeof(idt1)), + "All the results from SIDT are identical.\n"); sethandler(SIGILL, sighandler, 0); do_test(vm86, vmcode_umip_str - vmcode, VM86_SIGNAL, 0, @@ -250,11 +240,15 @@ void do_umip_tests(struct vm86plus_struct *vm86, unsigned char *test_mem) int main(void) { struct vm86plus_struct v86; - unsigned char *addr = mmap((void *)load_addr, 4096, - PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, - MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1,0); + unsigned char *addr; + + ksft_print_header(); + ksft_set_plan(18); + + addr = mmap((void *)load_addr, 4096, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0); if (addr != (unsigned char *)load_addr) - err(1, "mmap"); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("mmap"); memcpy(addr, vmcode, end_vmcode - vmcode); addr[2048] = 2; @@ -270,7 +264,8 @@ int main(void) /* Use the end of the page as our stack. */ v86.regs.esp = 4096; - assert((v86.regs.cs & 3) == 0); /* Looks like RPL = 0 */ + if (v86.regs.cs & 3) + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Looks like RPL = 0\n"); /* #BR -- should deliver SIG??? */ do_test(&v86, vmcode_bound - vmcode, VM86_INTx, 5, "#BR"); @@ -333,16 +328,18 @@ int main(void) v86.regs.ss = 0; sethandler(SIGSEGV, sighandler, 0); got_signal = 0; - if (do_test(&v86, 0, VM86_SIGNAL, 0, "Execute null pointer") && - !got_signal) { - printf("[FAIL]\tDid not receive SIGSEGV\n"); - nerrs++; - } + if (do_test(&v86, 0, VM86_SIGNAL, 0, "Execute null pointer")) + ksft_test_result(got_signal, "Received SIGSEGV\n"); + else + ksft_test_result_skip("Received SIGSEGV\n"); + clearhandler(SIGSEGV); /* Make sure nothing explodes if we fork. */ if (fork() == 0) return 0; - return (nerrs == 0 ? 0 : 1); + ksft_test_result_pass("fork succeeded\n"); + + ksft_finished(); }