Hi Mark,

On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:07AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:

quoted

+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?

Well, at the time of write, when the check_mte_memory return the "SKIP"
intent is to iterating the next item. But, yes this is meandingless.
I'll change with your suggestion.

quoted

+		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?

Right. I'll change this.

Thanks!


--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun