All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rppt at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mike Rapoport)
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd_open() result
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:50:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180807065023.GA20140@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180803220046.4019-2-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:00:43PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> If the userfaultfd test is run on a kernel with CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=n, it
> will report that the system call is not available yet go ahead and continue
> anyway:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
>   bounces: 0, mode:, register failure
> 
> This is because userfaultfd_open() returns 0 on success and 1 on error but
> all callers assume that it returns < 0 on error.
> 
> Since the convention of the test as a whole is the one used by
> userfault_open(), fix its callers instead. Now the test behaves correctly:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at linux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt at linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> index 7b8171e3128a..e4099afe7557 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage_test(void)
>  	if (uffd_test_ops->release_pages(area_dst))
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
>  	uffdio_register.range.start = (unsigned long) area_dst;
>  	uffdio_register.range.len = nr_pages * page_size;
> @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_events_test(void)
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK | UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP |
>  		UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMOVE;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -961,7 +961,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_sig_test(void)
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK|UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_stress(void)
>  	if (!area_dst)
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	count_verify = malloc(nr_pages * sizeof(unsigned long long));

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mike Rapoport)
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd_open() result
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:50:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180807065023.GA20140@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
Message-ID: <20180807065025.Xoiv9v4uxsEoWbBNjNGAK_w4feOdacpyoP7-Tzuh-oE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180803220046.4019-2-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018@07:00:43PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> If the userfaultfd test is run on a kernel with CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=n, it
> will report that the system call is not available yet go ahead and continue
> anyway:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
>   bounces: 0, mode:, register failure
> 
> This is because userfaultfd_open() returns 0 on success and 1 on error but
> all callers assume that it returns < 0 on error.
> 
> Since the convention of the test as a whole is the one used by
> userfault_open(), fix its callers instead. Now the test behaves correctly:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at linux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt at linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> index 7b8171e3128a..e4099afe7557 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage_test(void)
>  	if (uffd_test_ops->release_pages(area_dst))
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
>  	uffdio_register.range.start = (unsigned long) area_dst;
>  	uffdio_register.range.len = nr_pages * page_size;
> @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_events_test(void)
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK | UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP |
>  		UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMOVE;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -961,7 +961,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_sig_test(void)
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK|UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_stress(void)
>  	if (!area_dst)
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	count_verify = malloc(nr_pages * sizeof(unsigned long long));

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd_open() result
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:50:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180807065023.GA20140@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180803220046.4019-2-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:00:43PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> If the userfaultfd test is run on a kernel with CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=n, it
> will report that the system call is not available yet go ahead and continue
> anyway:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
>   bounces: 0, mode:, register failure
> 
> This is because userfaultfd_open() returns 0 on success and 1 on error but
> all callers assume that it returns < 0 on error.
> 
> Since the convention of the test as a whole is the one used by
> userfault_open(), fix its callers instead. Now the test behaves correctly:
> 
>   # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1
>   nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120
>   userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> index 7b8171e3128a..e4099afe7557 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage_test(void)
>  	if (uffd_test_ops->release_pages(area_dst))
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
>  	uffdio_register.range.start = (unsigned long) area_dst;
>  	uffdio_register.range.len = nr_pages * page_size;
> @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_events_test(void)
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK | UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP |
>  		UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMOVE;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -961,7 +961,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_sig_test(void)
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	features = UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK|UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS;
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(features) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(features))
>  		return 1;
>  	fcntl(uffd, F_SETFL, uffd_flags | O_NONBLOCK);
> 
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_stress(void)
>  	if (!area_dst)
>  		return 1;
> 
> -	if (userfaultfd_open(0) < 0)
> +	if (userfaultfd_open(0))
>  		return 1;
> 
>  	count_verify = malloc(nr_pages * sizeof(unsigned long long));

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-07  6:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-03 22:00 [PATCH v2 0/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Improve behavior with older kernels bauerman
2018-08-03 22:00 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Fix checking of userfaultfd_open() result bauerman
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-07  6:50   ` rppt [this message]
2018-08-07  6:50     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-07  6:50     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-03 22:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Skip test if userfaultfd() syscall not supported bauerman
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-07  6:50   ` rppt
2018-08-07  6:50     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-07  6:50     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-03 22:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Skip test if a feature isn't supported bauerman
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-07  6:51   ` rppt
2018-08-07  6:51     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-07  6:51     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-03 22:00 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Cope if shmem doesn't support zeropage bauerman
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-03 22:00   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-07  6:56   ` rppt
2018-08-07  6:56     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-07  6:56     ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-28  2:46     ` bauerman
2018-08-28  2:46       ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-28  2:46       ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2018-08-28  6:15       ` rppt
2018-08-28  6:15         ` Mike Rapoport
2018-08-28  6:15         ` Mike Rapoport

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180807065023.GA20140@rapoport-lnx \
    --to=unknown@example.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.