From patchwork Wed Dec 18 07:51:42 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sandipan Das X-Patchwork-Id: 11299757 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 E165214B7 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B828F21D7D for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:53:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B828F21D7D 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 6E8518E00E5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 698988E00EA; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:58 -0500 (EST) 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 4C26B8E00E5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:58 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0196.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.196]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304AB8E00EA for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DD789246A for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76277495994.06.dogs92_5406b1c422b63 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,768ca2a42673c155,d41d8cd98f00b204,sandipan@linux.ibm.com,:shuahkh@osg.samsung.com:linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org:linux-arch@vger.kernel.org:fweimer@redhat.com:dave.hansen@intel.com:x86@kernel.org:linuxram@us.ibm.com:mhocko@kernel.org::mingo@redhat.com:aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com:bauerman@linux.ibm.com:msuchanek@suse.de:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1261:1345:1359:1437:1535:1541:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2693:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6261:6742:7576:10004:11026:11473:11657:11658:11914:12043:12114:12297:12555:12679:12895:12986:13069:13311:13357:13972:14181:14384:14394:14721:21080:21451:21617:21990:30045:30054:30056:30064:30070,0,RBL:148.163.156.1:@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:2,LUA_SUMM ARY:none X-HE-Tag: dogs92_5406b1c422b63 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5320 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xBI7qsJX033637 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:56 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2wycp2yadg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:52:55 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:29 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:24 -0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xBI7qMPm53280790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:22 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A651BAE056; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5906FAE045; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fir03.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.121.59.65]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandipan Das To: shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, 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, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: [PATCH v15 09/23] selftests/vm/pkeys: Fix assertion in pkey_disable_set/clear() Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:21:42 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19121807-0016-0000-0000-000002D61122 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19121807-0017-0000-0000-000033384DA6 Message-Id: <8cbf050170b80ef33db611fd392136066c318ce0.1576645161.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-18_01:2019-12-17,2019-12-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=603 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912180063 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 --- 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 9a6c95b220cc..fbee0b061851 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"PKEY_REG_FMT"\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"PKEY_REG_FMT"\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)