From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
To: "aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com" <aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com>,
"ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com" <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
"tglx@kernel.org" <tglx@kernel.org>,
"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: x86: test_shadow_stack: return KSFT_SKIP when test is skipped
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:42:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5a977040caae42e41e3fab53efdfdb9201b67e3f.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3932934-3dd0-4296-8ac1-f06b818624f7@virtuozzo.com>
On Thu, 2026-03-19 at 17:38 +0100, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
> Adding original author to CC: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>.
>
> Maybe he has some insight on why we have this SKIP / return 1 inconsistency.
>
> On 3/1/26 02:47, Aleksei Oladko wrote:
> > test_shadow_stack prints a message indicating that the test is
> > skipped in some cases, but still returns 1. This causes the test
> > to be reported as failed instead of skipped.
> >
> > Return KSFT_SKIP in the skip path so the result is reported
> > correctly.
>
> Should we also return KSFT_SKIP in other 3 SKIP paths, which currently return 0?
> I guess that means that those skips are currently reported as success, right?
Oh, yea I think the first skip, "Could not enable Shadow stack", should return
0, but the rest of them should succeed if shadow stack gets enabled, so they are
more indicative of kernel issues. The "[SKIP]" message is wrong for those. If
you want to leave the error code as 1 for them, I can send a patch to correct
the message. But please feel welcome to fix the message part up too.
Also, "Could not re-enable Shadow stack" is a prelude to a crash. The test can't
return from main if shadow stack is enabled because the shadow stack won't
match. Functionally it makes no difference because it will crash, but it is a
sign that there is something wrong with the kernel. So having 1 there will have
the code make more sense.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-19 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-01 1:47 [PATCH] selftests: x86: test_shadow_stack: return KSFT_SKIP when test is skipped Aleksei Oladko
2026-03-15 19:08 ` Aleksei Oladko
2026-03-19 16:38 ` Pavel Tikhomirov
2026-03-19 17:42 ` Edgecombe, Rick P [this message]
2026-03-20 9:52 ` Pavel Tikhomirov
2026-03-20 17:23 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
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=5a977040caae42e41e3fab53efdfdb9201b67e3f.camel@intel.com \
--to=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox