Hi Catalin,

On 3/16/20 11:22 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:55:00AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:

quoted

On 3/16/20 10:34 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

[...]

As I said above, I don't see how removing 'if ((u32)ts >= (1UL << 32))'
makes any difference. This check was likely removed by the compiler
already.

Also, userspace doesn't have a trivial way to figure out TASK_SIZE and I
can't see anything that tests this in the vdsotest (though I haven't
spent that much time looking). If it's hard-coded, note that arm32
TASK_SIZE is different from TASK_SIZE_32 on arm64.

Can you tell what actually is failing in vdsotest if you remove the
TASK_SIZE_32 checks in the arm64 compat vdso?

To me does not seem optimized out. Which version of the compiler are you using?

Please find below the list of errors for clock_gettime (similar for the other):

passing UINTPTR_MAX to clock_gettime (VDSO): terminated by unexpected signal 7
clock-gettime-monotonic/abi: 1 failures/inconsistencies encountered

passing UINTPTR_MAX to clock_gettime (VDSO): terminated by unexpected signal 7
clock-gettime-monotonic-coarse/abi: 1 failures/inconsistencies encountered

passing UINTPTR_MAX to clock_gettime (VDSO): terminated by unexpected signal 7
clock-gettime-realtime/abi: 1 failures/inconsistencies encountered

passing UINTPTR_MAX to clock_gettime (VDSO): terminated by unexpected signal 7
clock-gettime-realtime-coarse/abi: 1 failures/inconsistencies encountered

Please refer to [1] for more details on the test.

[1]
https://github.com/nlynch-mentor/vdsotest/blob/master/src/clock_gettime_template.c

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel