On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
cleanup the code to satisfy coding styles.
cc: Dave Hansen <redacted>
cc: Florian Weimer <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <redacted>
---
tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 81 ++++++++++++++------------
1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
index 6054093..6fdd8f5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
*
* There are examples in here of:
* * how to set protection keys on memory
- * * how to set/clear bits in pkey registers (the rights register)
+ * * how to set/clear bits in Protection Key registers (the rights register)
I don't think CodingStyle says to do this. :)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
* * how to handle SEGV_PKUERR signals and extract pkey-relevant
* information from the siginfo
*
@@ -13,13 +13,18 @@
* prefault pages in at malloc, or not
* protect MPX bounds tables with protection keys?
* make sure VMA splitting/merging is working correctly
- * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()), so make sure it is immune to pkeys
- * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA but "freed" back to the kernel
- * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make sure the pkey sticks
+ * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()),
+ * so make sure it is immune to pkeys
+ * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA
+ * but "freed" back to the kernel
+ * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make
+ * sure the pkey sticks
Ram, I'm not sure where this came from, but this looks horrid. Please
don't do this to the file
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
* Compile like this:
- * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
- * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
+ * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99
+ * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
+ * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99
+ * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
*/
Please just leave this, or remove it from the file. It was a long line
so it could be copied and pasted, this ruins that.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <errno.h>
@@ -251,26 +256,11 @@ void signal_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *vucontext)
dprintf1("signal pkey_reg from pkey_reg: %016lx\n", __rdpkey_reg());
dprintf1("pkey from siginfo: %jx\n", siginfo_pkey);
*(u64 *)pkey_reg_ptr = 0x00000000;
- dprintf1("WARNING: set PRKU=0 to allow faulting instruction to continue\n");
+ dprintf1("WARNING: set PKEY_REG=0 to allow faulting instruction "
+ "to continue\n");
pkey_faults++;
dprintf1("<<<<==================================================\n");
return;
- if (trapno == 14) {
- fprintf(stderr,
- "ERROR: In signal handler, page fault, trapno = %d, ip = %016lx\n",
- trapno, ip);
- fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);
- fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",
- (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);
- exit(1);
- } else {
- fprintf(stderr, "unexpected trap %d! at 0x%lx\n", trapno, ip);
- fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);
- fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",
- (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);
- exit(2);
- }
- dprint_in_signal = 0;
}
I think this is just randomly removing code now.
I think you should probably just drop this patch. It's not really
brining anything useful.