From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bauerman at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:47:04 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v12 07/22] selftests/vm: fixed bugs in pkey_disable_clear() In-Reply-To: References: <1519264541-7621-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1519264541-7621-8-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87muys3p2v.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Dave Hansen writes: > On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote: >> --- 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-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:47:04 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v12 07/22] selftests/vm: fixed bugs in pkey_disable_clear() In-Reply-To: References: <1519264541-7621-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1519264541-7621-8-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87muys3p2v.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20180328204704.wul5BCQFT7oygSxUJZxT38nqNvkaHXkzKrI2JYENoeE@z> Dave Hansen writes: > On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote: >> --- 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-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html