From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965800AbeEYK0j (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 06:26:39 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:51963 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965102AbeEYK0h (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 06:26:37 -0400 Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au From: Michael Ellerman To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ram Pai , Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] selftests/powerpc: Add ptrace tests for Protection Key registers In-Reply-To: <874liwqy64.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> References: <20180223183344.21038-1-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87tvr6mlbe.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <874liwqy64.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:26:35 +1000 Message-ID: <87po1kqbdw.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > Michael Ellerman writes: >> Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h | 1 + >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile | 5 +- >>> tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/child.h | 130 ++++++++ >>> .../testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-pkey.c | 326 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> This is failing on machines without pkeys: >> >> test: ptrace_pkey >> tags: git_version:52e7d87 >> [FAIL] Test FAILED on line 117 >> [FAIL] Test FAILED on line 191 >> failure: ptrace_pkey >> >> >> I think the first fail is in the child here: >> >> int ptrace_read_regs(pid_t child, unsigned long type, unsigned long regs[], >> int n) >> { >> struct iovec iov; >> long ret; >> >> FAIL_IF(start_trace(child)); >> >> iov.iov_base = regs; >> iov.iov_len = n * sizeof(unsigned long); >> >> ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, child, type, &iov); >> FAIL_IF(ret != 0); >> >> >> Which makes sense. > > Yes, that is indeed what is going on. > >> The test needs to skip if pkeys are not available/enabled. Using the >> availability of the REGSET might actually be a nice way to detect that, >> because it's read-only. > > I forgot to consider the case of pkeys not available or not enabled, > sorry about that. No worries. > I just sent a v2 which implements your suggestion above. Thanks. cheers