Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Ellerman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] selftests/powerpc: Add ptrace tests for Protection Key registers | Date | Fri, 25 May 2018 20:26:35 +1000 |
| |
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> writes: >> Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h | 1 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile | 5 +- >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/child.h | 130 ++++++++ >>> .../testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-pkey.c | 326 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> This is failing on machines without pkeys: >> >> test: ptrace_pkey >> tags: git_version:52e7d87 >> [FAIL] Test FAILED on line 117 >> [FAIL] Test FAILED on line 191 >> failure: ptrace_pkey >> >> >> I think the first fail is in the child here: >> >> int ptrace_read_regs(pid_t child, unsigned long type, unsigned long regs[], >> int n) >> { >> struct iovec iov; >> long ret; >> >> FAIL_IF(start_trace(child)); >> >> iov.iov_base = regs; >> iov.iov_len = n * sizeof(unsigned long); >> >> ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, child, type, &iov); >> FAIL_IF(ret != 0); >> >> >> Which makes sense. > > Yes, that is indeed what is going on. > >> The test needs to skip if pkeys are not available/enabled. Using the >> availability of the REGSET might actually be a nice way to detect that, >> because it's read-only. > > I forgot to consider the case of pkeys not available or not enabled, > sorry about that.
No worries.
> I just sent a v2 which implements your suggestion above.
Thanks.
cheers
| |