From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Date: 2015-09-22 10:44:51
These two patches fix building the userfaultfd test tool for me.
The first patch fixes a build error I experienced by removing a kernel
header from an uapi header file.
The second fix adds the syscall numbers for other architectures,
fixes a typo and makes the whole syscall numbering more future-proof.
Tested on x86, arm and arm64.
Andre Przywara (2):
userfaultfd: remove kernel header include from uapi header
selftests/userfaultfd: improve syscall number definition
include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h | 2 --
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.5.1
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Date: 2015-09-22 10:44:55
At the moment the userfaultfd test program only supports x86 and an
architecture called "powewrpc" ;-)
Fix that typo and add the syscall numbers for other architectures as
well.
Also as in an ideal world a syscall number should come from the system
header file <asm/unistd.h>, include that header and guard the explicit
syscall number section below to avoid redefinitions.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <redacted>
---
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -65,16 +65,27 @@#include<sys/ioctl.h>#include<pthread.h>#include"../../../../include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h"+#include<asm/unistd.h>+/* ideally the above user header provides that number, but ... */+#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd#ifdef __x86_64__#define __NR_userfaultfd 323#elif defined(__i386__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 374-#elif defined(__powewrpc__)+#elif defined(__powerpc__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 364+#elif defined(__ia64__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 1343+#elif defined(__arm__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 388+#elif defined(__aarch64__)+/* this is from the generic syscall table, used also on other architectures */+#define __NR_userfaultfd 283#else#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"#endif+#endif /* !__NR_userfaultfd */staticunsignedlongnr_cpus,nr_pages,nr_pages_per_cpu,page_size;
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Date: 2015-09-22 10:45:47
As include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h is a user visible header file,
it should not include kernel-exclusive header files.
So trying to build the userfaultfd test program from the selftests
directory fails, since it contains a reference to linux/compiler.h.
As it turns out, that header is not really needed there, so we can
simply remove it to fix that issue.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <redacted>
---
include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
At the moment the userfaultfd test program only supports x86 and an
architecture called "powewrpc" ;-)
Fix that typo and add the syscall numbers for other architectures as
well.
Also as in an ideal world a syscall number should come from the system
header file <asm/unistd.h>, include that header and guard the explicit
syscall number section below to avoid redefinitions.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <redacted>
---
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -65,16 +65,27 @@#include<sys/ioctl.h>#include<pthread.h>#include"../../../../include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h"+#include<asm/unistd.h>+/* ideally the above user header provides that number, but ... */+#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd#ifdef __x86_64__#define __NR_userfaultfd 323#elif defined(__i386__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 374-#elif defined(__powewrpc__)+#elif defined(__powerpc__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 364+#elif defined(__ia64__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 1343+#elif defined(__arm__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 388+#elif defined(__aarch64__)+/* this is from the generic syscall table, used also on other architectures */+#define __NR_userfaultfd 283#else#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"#endif+#endif /* !__NR_userfaultfd */staticunsignedlongnr_cpus,nr_pages,nr_pages_per_cpu,page_size;
This is not okay. User-space shouldn't be (re)defining/duplicating
syscall numbers. I can't take this patch.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org | (970) 217-8978
From: Andrea Arcangeli <hidden> Date: 2015-09-22 14:06:31
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:49:13AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 09/22/2015 04:45 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
quoted
At the moment the userfaultfd test program only supports x86 and an
architecture called "powewrpc" ;-)
Fix that typo and add the syscall numbers for other architectures as
well.
Also as in an ideal world a syscall number should come from the system
header file <asm/unistd.h>, include that header and guard the explicit
syscall number section below to avoid redefinitions.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <redacted>
---
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -65,16 +65,27 @@#include<sys/ioctl.h>#include<pthread.h>#include"../../../../include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h"+#include<asm/unistd.h>+/* ideally the above user header provides that number, but ... */+#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd#ifdef __x86_64__#define __NR_userfaultfd 323#elif defined(__i386__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 374-#elif defined(__powewrpc__)+#elif defined(__powerpc__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 364+#elif defined(__ia64__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 1343+#elif defined(__arm__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 388+#elif defined(__aarch64__)+/* this is from the generic syscall table, used also on other architectures */+#define __NR_userfaultfd 283#else#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"#endif+#endif /* !__NR_userfaultfd */staticunsignedlongnr_cpus,nr_pages,nr_pages_per_cpu,page_size;
This is not okay. User-space shouldn't be (re)defining/duplicating
syscall numbers. I can't take this patch.
-mm has already been updated to do exactly that. Syscall numbers end
up hardcoded into userland binaries/libs somewhere, so it's not a
bugfix but certainly it's a nice cleanup to remove the whole #ifdef block.
Andre, could you see if linux-next (which includes -mm) works for you
by just running "cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/ && make"? If there's
any further change required could you diff it against linux-next?
Thanks!
Andrea
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Date: 2015-09-22 17:15:45
Hi Shuah, Andrea,
On 22/09/15 15:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:49:13AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
quoted
On 09/22/2015 04:45 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
quoted
At the moment the userfaultfd test program only supports x86 and an
architecture called "powewrpc" ;-)
Fix that typo and add the syscall numbers for other architectures as
well.
Also as in an ideal world a syscall number should come from the system
header file <asm/unistd.h>, include that header and guard the explicit
syscall number section below to avoid redefinitions.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -65,16 +65,27 @@#include<sys/ioctl.h>#include<pthread.h>#include"../../../../include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h"+#include<asm/unistd.h>+/* ideally the above user header provides that number, but ... */+#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd#ifdef __x86_64__#define __NR_userfaultfd 323#elif defined(__i386__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 374-#elif defined(__powewrpc__)+#elif defined(__powerpc__)#define __NR_userfaultfd 364+#elif defined(__ia64__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 1343+#elif defined(__arm__)+#define __NR_userfaultfd 388+#elif defined(__aarch64__)+/* this is from the generic syscall table, used also on other architectures */+#define __NR_userfaultfd 283#else#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"#endif+#endif /* !__NR_userfaultfd */staticunsignedlongnr_cpus,nr_pages,nr_pages_per_cpu,page_size;
This is not okay. User-space shouldn't be (re)defining/duplicating
syscall numbers. I can't take this patch.
While I agree that this isn't the right approach from a userland point
of view, I wonder how this is supposed to work for the next few months?
Is everybody required to overwrite their distribution-provided kernel
headers just for compiling this test program?
-mm has already been updated to do exactly that. Syscall numbers end
up hardcoded into userland binaries/libs somewhere, so it's not a
bugfix but certainly it's a nice cleanup to remove the whole #ifdef block.
Andre, could you see if linux-next (which includes -mm) works for you
by just running "cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/ && make"? If there's
any further change required could you diff it against linux-next?
This doesn't compile now for me, because it looks into
/usr/include/asm/unistd.h, which I keep to the distribution copy of it.
Also linux/userfaultfd.h is missing, because it's brand new.
If that tool lives in the kernel repo, it should be able to either use
the uapi headers directly or hardcode the syscall numbers - strictly
it's not a sane userland program anymore, but for that kind of tools I
deem it's totally acceptable. I think this is one rationale for keeping
it inside the linux.git repo.
Obviously you were facing the same problem in the beginning (looking at
the original code), so I was just extending the original solution to
cover more architectures and prepare for the time when those symbols
start to appear in distributions.
I guess the right solution would be to hack the Makefile to set the
include path to the kernel's copy of include/uapi, though I am not sure
this works cleanly for different architectures and separate build
directories. I will give this a try ...
Cheers,
Andre.
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2015-09-23 09:55:14
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:15 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
On 22/09/15 15:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted
Andre, could you see if linux-next (which includes -mm) works for you
by just running "cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/ && make"? If there's
any further change required could you diff it against linux-next?
This doesn't compile now for me, because it looks into
/usr/include/asm/unistd.h, which I keep to the distribution copy of it.
Also linux/userfaultfd.h is missing, because it's brand new.
...
I guess the right solution would be to hack the Makefile to set the
include path to the kernel's copy of include/uapi, though I am not sure
this works cleanly for different architectures and separate build
directories. I will give this a try ...
Not that's not the right solution.
The right solution is to export the kernel headers, the Makefile will pick them
up (at least in linux-next):
$ cd linux
$ make headers_install
$ ls usr/include/
asm/ asm-generic/ drm/ linux/ misc/ mtd/ rdma/ scsi/ sound/ uapi/ video/ xen/
$ make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=vm
...
$ ls tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd*
cheers
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Date: 2015-09-23 13:10:54
Hi Michael,
On 23/09/15 10:55, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:15 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
quoted
On 22/09/15 15:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted
Andre, could you see if linux-next (which includes -mm) works for you
by just running "cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/ && make"? If there's
any further change required could you diff it against linux-next?
This doesn't compile now for me, because it looks into
/usr/include/asm/unistd.h, which I keep to the distribution copy of it.
Also linux/userfaultfd.h is missing, because it's brand new.
...
quoted
I guess the right solution would be to hack the Makefile to set the
include path to the kernel's copy of include/uapi, though I am not sure
this works cleanly for different architectures and separate build
directories. I will give this a try ...
Not that's not the right solution.
The right solution is to export the kernel headers, the Makefile will pick them
up (at least in linux-next):
Actually that was I was hoping for, I just missed the possibility of
headers_install to put the files back into the kernel tree (I usually
use it with INSTALL_HDR_PATH for packaging).
$ cd linux
$ make headers_install
$ ls usr/include/
asm/ asm-generic/ drm/ linux/ misc/ mtd/ rdma/ scsi/ sound/ uapi/ video/ xen/
$ make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=vm
...
$ ls tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd*
Yes, that works. Now I have just to figure out how to arrange this with
out-of-tree build directories.
Cheers,
Andre.
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2015-09-24 02:04:43
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 14:11 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 23/09/15 10:55, Michael Ellerman wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:15 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
quoted
On 22/09/15 15:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted
Andre, could you see if linux-next (which includes -mm) works for you
by just running "cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/ && make"? If there's
any further change required could you diff it against linux-next?
This doesn't compile now for me, because it looks into
/usr/include/asm/unistd.h, which I keep to the distribution copy of it.
Also linux/userfaultfd.h is missing, because it's brand new.
...
quoted
I guess the right solution would be to hack the Makefile to set the
include path to the kernel's copy of include/uapi, though I am not sure
this works cleanly for different architectures and separate build
directories. I will give this a try ...
Not that's not the right solution.
The right solution is to export the kernel headers, the Makefile will pick them
up (at least in linux-next):
Actually that was I was hoping for, I just missed the possibility of
headers_install to put the files back into the kernel tree (I usually
use it with INSTALL_HDR_PATH for packaging).
OK great.
It does seem that folks are struggling to work out how to do this, so maybe we
can come up with a way to have it automated.
quoted
$ cd linux
$ make headers_install
$ ls usr/include/
asm/ asm-generic/ drm/ linux/ misc/ mtd/ rdma/ scsi/ sound/ uapi/ video/ xen/
$ make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=vm
...
$ ls tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd*
Yes, that works. Now I have just to figure out how to arrange this with
out-of-tree build directories.
Right, I think it doesn't work at the moment.
The makefiles that look for the kernel headers use ../../../../usr/include,
which probably isn't what you want for an out of tree build.
Maybe we should do something like the below.
It allows you to do:
$ make O=~/work/build/ headers_install
$ ls ~/work/build/usr/include/
asm/ asm-generic/ drm/ linux/ misc/ mtd/ rdma/ scsi/ sound/ uapi/ video/ xen/
$ ls usr/include
ls: cannot access usr/include: No such file or directory
$ make -C tools/testing/selftests KERNEL_HEADERS=~/work/build/usr/include/ TARGEST=vm
$ ls tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd*
cheers
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@# Makefile for vm selftests-CFLAGS=-Wall-I../../../../usr/include$(EXTRA_CFLAGS)+CFLAGS=-Wall-I$(KERNEL_HEADERS)$(EXTRA_CFLAGS)BINARIES=compaction_testBINARIES+=hugepage-mmapBINARIES+=hugepage-shm