From patchwork Tue Mar 31 09:58:10 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sandipan Das X-Patchwork-Id: 11467119 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE2E81 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69402208FE for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:59:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 69402208FE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F05116B0075; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DF3096B0078; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BF8296B007B; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0191.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.191]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A225D6B0075 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA5F8248047 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:59:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76655209008.15.name56_6c495489bfb0f X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,7dd6f750015cdb59,d41d8cd98f00b204,sandipan@linux.ibm.com,,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1261:1345:1359:1437:1535:1541:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2693:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:5007:6261:6742:7576:10004:11026:11473:11657:11658:11914:12043:12114:12297:12555:12679:12895:13069:13311:13357:13972:14181:14384:14394:14721:21080:21451:21617:21990:30045:30054:30056:30064:30070,0,RBL:148.163.158.5:@linux.ibm.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.2.0.100 64.100.201.201,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:15,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: name56_6c495489bfb0f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5418 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:59:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02V9XGZK026215 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:03 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30206y2dhb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:59:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:58:52 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) 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) Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:58:48 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 02V9wuxE59703346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:56 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E664C040; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2A24C046; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fir03.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.121.59.65]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:58:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandipan Das To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, fweimer@redhat.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, bauerman@linux.ibm.com, msuchanek@suse.de, mpe@ellerman.id.au, shuah@kernel.org, Dave Hansen Subject: [PATCH v19 09/24] selftests/vm/pkeys: Fix assertion in pkey_disable_set/clear() Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:28:10 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20033109-0008-0000-0000-00000367B4D3 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20033109-0009-0000-0000-00004A8938E8 Message-Id: <8240665131e43fc93eed4eea8194676c1ea39a7f.1585646528.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.676 definitions=2020-03-31_03:2020-03-30,2020-03-31 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=567 suspectscore=1 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003310081 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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 Acked-by: Dave Hansen --- 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 4b1ddb526228d..7fd52d5c4bfdd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016llx\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); } @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016llx\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)