[PATCH v8 30/38] kselftest/arm64: Allow signals tests to specify an expected si_code
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-02-03 12:33:03
Also in:
kvmarm, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml
Subsystem:
arm64 port (aarch64 architecture), kernel selftest framework, the rest · Maintainers:
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Shuah Khan, Linus Torvalds
Currently we ignore si_code unless the expected signal is a SIGSEGV, in which case we enforce it being SEGV_ACCERR. Allow test cases to specify exactly which si_code should be generated so we can validate this, and test for other segfault codes. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> --- .../testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h | 4 +++ .../selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c | 29 ++++++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
index 7ada43688c02..ee75a2c25ce7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h@@ -71,6 +71,10 @@ struct tdescr { * Zero when no signal is expected on success */ int sig_ok; + /* + * expected si_code for sig_ok, or 0 to not check + */ + int sig_ok_code; /* signum expected on unsupported CPU features. */ int sig_unsupp; /* a timeout in second for test completion */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
index 89ef95c1af0e..63deca32b0df 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c@@ -143,16 +143,25 @@ static bool handle_signal_ok(struct tdescr *td, "current->token ZEROED...test is probably broken!\n"); abort(); } - /* - * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones generated by Kernel itself - * via arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort check anyway, and - * the si_code check may need to change if this aspect of the kernel - * ABI changes. - */ - if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) { - fprintf(stdout, - "si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n"); - abort(); + if (td->sig_ok_code) { + if (si->si_code != td->sig_ok_code) { + fprintf(stdout, "si_code is %d not %d\n", + si->si_code, td->sig_ok_code); + abort(); + } + } else { + /* + * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones + * generated by Kernel itself via + * arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort + * check anyway, and the si_code check may need to + * change if this aspect of the kernel ABI changes. + */ + if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) { + fprintf(stdout, + "si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n"); + abort(); + } } td->pass = 1; /*
--
2.30.2