Re: [PATCH v6 9/9] kselftest/arm64/mte: add mtefar tests on check_mmap_options
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date: 2025-06-11 12:25:28
Also in:
linux-doc, lkml
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:07AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+static int check_anonymous_memory_mapping(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping, int tag_check, int atag_check) { char *ptr, *map_ptr; int run, result, map_size;@@ -97,16 +106,16 @@ static int check_anonymous_memory_mapping(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping, i munmap((void *)map_ptr, map_size); return KSFT_FAIL; } - result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, tag_check); + result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, tag_check, atag_check); mte_clear_tags((void *)ptr, sizes[run]); mte_free_memory((void *)map_ptr, map_size, mem_type, false); - if (result == KSFT_FAIL) - return KSFT_FAIL; + if (result != KSFT_SKIP) + return result; }
This changes the logic to exit the loop immediately if the check passes which doesn't seem like what we want, should we instead change the test to be: if (result != KSFT_PASS) which I think is more the intent?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, TAG_CHECK_ON, atag_check); mte_free_memory_tag_range((void *)ptr, sizes[run], mem_type, UNDERFLOW, OVERFLOW); if (result != KSFT_PASS) return KSFT_FAIL;@@ -192,7 +201,7 @@ static int check_clear_prot_mte_flag(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping) close(fd); return KSFT_FAIL; }
Won't this upgrade any skips to fails?
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 488 bytes