Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: selftests: Fix warnings pointer masking test

[Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:30:59PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 06:57:10PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > When compiling the pointer masking tests with -Wall this warning
> > > is present:
> > > 
> > > pointer_masking.c: In function ‘test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl’:
> > > pointer_masking.c:203:9: warning: ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’
> > > declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result]
> > >   203 |         pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0); |
> > >       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pointer_masking.c:208:9: warning:
> > > ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’ declared with attribute
> > > ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result]
> > >   208 |         pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > 
> > > I came across this on riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> > > 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04).
# Testing tagged address ABI sysctl
ok 57 # SKIP failed to open sysctl file
ok 58 # SKIP failed to open sysctl file> > > 
> > > Fix this by checking that the number of bytes written equal the expected
> > > number of bytes written.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 7470b5afd150 ("riscv: selftests: Add a pointer masking test")
> > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - I had ret != 2 for testing, I changed it to be ret != 1.
> > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v1-1-ea1e9665ce7a@rivosinc.com
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > index dee41b7ee3e3..229d85ccff50 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	char value;
> > >  	int fd;
> > > +	int ret;
> > >  
> > >  	ksft_print_msg("Testing tagged address ABI sysctl\n");
> > >  
> > > @@ -200,14 +201,24 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void)
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	value = '1';
> > > -	pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > +	ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > +	if (ret != 1) {
> > > +		ksft_test_result_fail("Write to /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr_disabled failed.\n");
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >  	ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == -EINVAL,
> > >  			 "sysctl disabled\n");
> > >  
> > >  	value = '0';
> > > -	pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > -	ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == 0,
> > > -			 "sysctl enabled\n");
> > > +	ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > +	if (ret != 1) {
> > > +		ksft_test_result_fail("Write to /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr_disabled failed.\n");
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Could make a wrapper function for pwrite() to avoid duplicating the ret
> > value check.
> 
> I'll change it to a goto statement to avoid duplicating the
> ksft_test_result_fail call.
> 
> > 
> > > +
> > > +	ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == -EINVAL,
> > > +			 "sysctl disabled\n");
> > 
> > Why is this changed from expecting 0 for the return and being the
> > "sysctrl enabled" test? We still write '0' to tagged_addr_disabled here.
> 
> Silly copy mistake, thank you!
> 
> > 
> > >  
> > >  	set_tagged_addr_ctrl(0, false);
> > >  
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 40384c840ea1944d7c5a392e8975ed088ecf0b37
> > > change-id: 20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-3860e4f35429
> > > -- 
> > > - Charlie
> > >
> > 
> > Not part of this patch, but now that I looked at
> > test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl() I see that
> > ksft_test_result_skip() is duplicated.
> 
> Oh huh I hadn't noticed that. I'll send a patch for that I guess, easy
> fix.

Oh wait, there are two skips because there are two ksft_test_result() in
this function. I guess I should make it so that if the first pwrite()
fails (for the sysctl disabled test) it should skip the "sysctl enabled"
test.

- Charlie

> 
> - Charlie
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > drew
> > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-riscv mailing list
> > > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv