From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752128AbeD2Eqj (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2018 00:46:39 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:53907 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801AbeD2Eqi (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2018 00:46:38 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov References: <20180428091823.h3iajtxkqdwdcpst@gmail.com> <20180428175043.y35czmhcursyrzsy@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 23:46:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180428175043.y35czmhcursyrzsy@gmail.com> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:50:43 +0200") Message-ID: <87muxmboxd.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1fCeDy-0008Mm-OS;;;mid=<87muxmboxd.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.116.237.29;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+WBleNzYwqgS1BRd+R0FI4W+rgS+6nA6M= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.116.237.29 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4999] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Ingo Molnar X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 15027 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.6 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 2.5 (0.0%), parse: 1.12 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 13 (0.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.1 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.1 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.24 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.06 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 21 (0.1%), check_bayes: 20 (0.1%), b_tokenize: 6 (0.0%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.0%), b_comp_prob: 2.2 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.8 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.66 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 152 (1.0%), check_dkim_signature: 0.62 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.7 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 14828 (98.7%), poll_dns_idle: 14820 (98.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [RFD] x86: The future of MPX X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar writes: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:18 AM Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> > I just tried the MPX testcases with the latest kernel: >> >> > deimos:~/tip/tools/testing/selftests/x86> ./mpx-mini-test_64 >> >> They need to be run as root. They try to access >> >> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_ftrace_pid >> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace >> >> and that's root-only. > > Indeed - but note that they are crashing as root as well here: > > root@deimos:/home/mingo/tip/tools/testing/selftests/x86# ./mpx-mini-test_64 > [...] > Aborted (core dumped) > > ... because I don't even have /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_ftrace_pid... :-/ > > That's despite having ftrace enabled. > > After some digging I found out that 'set_ftrace_pid' is dependent on > CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING=y (not just CONFIG_TRACING=y), which I didn't > have enabled on this kernel. > > After enabling it I got the 64-bit testcase to work: > > # > ... > ./mpx-mini-test_64 completed successfully > > But the 32-bit testcase is erroring out: > > root@deimos:/home/mingo/tip/tools/testing/selftests/x86# ./mpx-mini-test_32 > XSAVE is supported by HW & OS > XSAVE processor supported state mask: 0x21f > XSAVE OS supported state mask: 0x21f > BNDREGS: size: 64 user: 1 supervisor: 0 aligned: 0 > BNDCSR: size: 64 user: 1 supervisor: 0 aligned: 0 > executing unmaptest > mpx dig ( 1) complete, SUCCESS ( 0 / 0) > #BR status == 2, missing bounds table,kernel should have handled!! > > v4.17-rc2 based kernel, so it should have the latest MPX code. If you remove this which tree will this be going into? I have some refactoring and cleanups of the x86 siginfo code I am hoping to get in later this development cycle and part of that was refactoring the mpx code so it works more like everything else. If the codes away I can just that part of the patchset. Eric