From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f69.google.com (mail-pg0-f69.google.com [74.125.83.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E736B0009 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id e17so5320817pgv.5 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com. [192.55.52.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o22si5589409pgv.232.2018.03.16.15.22.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 12/22] selftests/vm: generic cleanup References: <1519264541-7621-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1519264541-7621-13-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <920ff5c4-153a-488c-e502-82ea43adbd79@intel.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:22:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519264541-7621-13-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ram Pai , shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, arnd@arndb.de On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote: > cleanup the code to satisfy coding styles. > > cc: Dave Hansen > cc: Florian Weimer > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai > --- > tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 81 ++++++++++++++------------ > 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c > index 6054093..6fdd8f5 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ > * > * There are examples in here of: > * * how to set protection keys on memory > - * * how to set/clear bits in pkey registers (the rights register) > + * * how to set/clear bits in Protection Key registers (the rights register) I don't think CodingStyle says to do this. :) > * * how to handle SEGV_PKUERR signals and extract pkey-relevant > * information from the siginfo > * > @@ -13,13 +13,18 @@ > * prefault pages in at malloc, or not > * protect MPX bounds tables with protection keys? > * make sure VMA splitting/merging is working correctly > - * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()), so make sure it is immune to pkeys > - * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA but "freed" back to the kernel > - * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make sure the pkey sticks > + * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()), > + * so make sure it is immune to pkeys > + * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA > + * but "freed" back to the kernel > + * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make > + * sure the pkey sticks Ram, I'm not sure where this came from, but this looks horrid. Please don't do this to the file > * Compile like this: > - * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm > - * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm > + * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99 > + * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm > + * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 > + * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm > */ Please just leave this, or remove it from the file. It was a long line so it could be copied and pasted, this ruins that. > #define _GNU_SOURCE > #include > @@ -251,26 +256,11 @@ void signal_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *vucontext) > dprintf1("signal pkey_reg from pkey_reg: %016lx\n", __rdpkey_reg()); > dprintf1("pkey from siginfo: %jx\n", siginfo_pkey); > *(u64 *)pkey_reg_ptr = 0x00000000; > - dprintf1("WARNING: set PRKU=0 to allow faulting instruction to continue\n"); > + dprintf1("WARNING: set PKEY_REG=0 to allow faulting instruction " > + "to continue\n"); > pkey_faults++; > dprintf1("<<<<==================================================\n"); > return; > - if (trapno == 14) { > - fprintf(stderr, > - "ERROR: In signal handler, page fault, trapno = %d, ip = %016lx\n", > - trapno, ip); > - fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr); > - fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n", > - (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]); > - exit(1); > - } else { > - fprintf(stderr, "unexpected trap %d! at 0x%lx\n", trapno, ip); > - fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr); > - fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n", > - (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]); > - exit(2); > - } > - dprint_in_signal = 0; > } I think this is just randomly removing code now. I think you should probably just drop this patch. It's not really brining anything useful.