Hi John,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:31 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On 2/12/25 12:34 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On 6/13/24 19:30, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c
> >> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
> >>   #include <sys/wait.h>
> >>   #include <sys/stat.h>
> >>   #include <fcntl.h>
> >> -#include <unistd.h>
> >> +#include <linux/unistd.h>
> >>   #include <sys/ptrace.h>
> >>   #include <setjmp.h>
> >
> > I'm not quite sure how but this broke the protection_keys.c selftest for
> > me. Before this commit (a5c6bc590094a1a73cf6fa3f505e1945d2bf2461) things
> > are fine.  But after, I get:
> >
> >       running PKEY tests for unsupported CPU/OS
> >
> > The "unsupported" test just makes a pkey_alloc() syscall. It's probably
> > calling the wrong syscall number or something.
> >
> > I think it's still broken in mainline. What's the right fix?
>
> omg I think this is an asm-generic include mistake, I'll check
> on it in an hour or so, in more depth.
>

I just found that mlock2_() return a wrong value in mlock2-test,
I guess that was caused by including the wrong header file
<asm-generic/unistd.h>, which might define a different syscall
number than what the kernel uses on the test system.

Shouldn't we make use of <unistd.h> directly?


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang