Dave Hansen [off-list ref] writes:

On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:

quoted

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c

@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags)
 			pkey, pkey, pkey_rights);
 	pkey_assert(pkey_rights >= 0);

-	pkey_rights |= flags;
+	pkey_rights &= ~flags;

 	ret = pkey_set(pkey, pkey_rights, 0);
 	/* pkey_reg and flags have the same format */

@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags)
 	dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016lx\n", __func__,
 			pkey, rdpkey_reg());
 	if (flags)
-		assert(rdpkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
+		assert(rdpkey_reg() < orig_pkey_reg);
 }

 void pkey_write_allow(int pkey)

This seems so horribly wrong that I wonder how it worked in the first
place.  Any idea?

The code simply wasn't used. pkey_disable_clear() is called by
pkey_write_allow() and pkey_access_allow(), but before this patch series
nothing called either of these functions.


--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html