* [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes
@ 2019-02-11 22:15 Jan Stancek
2019-02-11 23:54 ` Daniel Mentz
2019-02-19 13:29 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2019-02-11 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
exec_func() is dummy/empty function. Try to align it so we don't
need to worry about copying 2 pages. But also check that compiler
aligned it and there's sufficient space between start of func_exec
and end of page.
This patch also removes copy_sz, which is now replaced with page_sz.
Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile | 2 +
testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c | 55 +++++++++++--------------
2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
index bd617d806675..bc5c8bc10395 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
@@ -20,4 +20,6 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
+mprotect04: CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64
+
include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
index 60941a4220d5..0f7890dca03b 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(testfunc);
static volatile int sig_caught;
static sigjmp_buf env;
-static unsigned int copy_sz;
+static unsigned int page_sz;
typedef void (*func_ptr_t)(void);
int main(int ac, char **av)
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static void setup(void)
{
tst_tmpdir();
tst_sig(NOFORK, sighandler, cleanup);
- copy_sz = getpagesize() * 2;
+ page_sz = getpagesize();
TEST_PAUSE;
}
@@ -96,12 +96,9 @@ static void setup(void)
static void testfunc_protnone(void)
{
char *addr;
- int page_sz;
sig_caught = 0;
- page_sz = getpagesize();
-
addr = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
@@ -133,7 +130,7 @@ static void testfunc_protnone(void)
#ifdef __ia64__
-static char exec_func[] = {
+static char exec_func[] __attribute__ ((aligned (64))) = {
0x11, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, /* nop.m 0x0 */
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0x00, 0x80, /* nop.i 0x0 */
0x08, 0x00, 0x84, 0x00, /* br.ret.sptk.many b0;; */
@@ -210,42 +207,33 @@ typedef struct {
* Copy page where &exec_func resides. Also try to copy subsequent page
* in case exec_func is close to page boundary.
*/
-static void *get_func(void *mem)
+static void *get_func(void *mem, uintptr_t *func_page_offset)
{
uintptr_t page_sz = getpagesize();
uintptr_t page_mask = ~(page_sz - 1);
- uintptr_t func_page_offset;
void *func_copy_start, *page_to_copy;
void *mem_start = mem;
#ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
func_descr_t *opd = (func_descr_t *)&exec_func;
- func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
- func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
+ *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
+ func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)opd->entry & page_mask);
#else
- func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
- func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
+ *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
+ func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)&exec_func & page_mask);
#endif
+ tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p",
+ &exec_func, page_to_copy);
/* copy 1st page, if it's not present something is wrong */
- if (!page_present(page_to_copy)) {
- tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p\n",
- &exec_func, page_to_copy);
+ if (!page_present(page_to_copy))
tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "page_to_copy not present\n");
- }
- memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
- /* copy 2nd page if possible */
- mem += page_sz;
- page_to_copy += page_sz;
- if (page_present(page_to_copy))
- memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
- else
- memset(mem, 0, page_sz);
+ memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
- clear_cache(mem_start, copy_sz);
+ clear_cache(mem_start, page_sz);
/* return pointer to area where copy of exec_func resides */
return func_copy_start;
@@ -256,23 +244,30 @@ static void *get_func(void *mem)
static void testfunc_protexec(void)
{
func_ptr_t func;
+ uintptr_t func_page_offset;
void *p;
sig_caught = 0;
- p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, copy_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
#ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
func_descr_t opd;
- opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p);
+ opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
func = (func_ptr_t)&opd;
#else
- func = get_func(p);
+ func = get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
#endif
+ if (func_page_offset + 64 >= page_sz) {
+ SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
+ tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "func too close to page boundary, "
+ "maybe your compiler ignores -falign-functions?");
+ }
+
/* Change the protection to PROT_EXEC. */
- TEST(mprotect(p, copy_sz, PROT_EXEC));
+ TEST(mprotect(p, page_sz, PROT_EXEC));
if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "mprotect failed");
@@ -294,7 +289,7 @@ static void testfunc_protexec(void)
}
}
- SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, copy_sz);
+ SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
}
static void cleanup(void)
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes
2019-02-11 22:15 [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes Jan Stancek
@ 2019-02-11 23:54 ` Daniel Mentz
2019-02-12 7:40 ` Jan Stancek
2019-02-19 13:29 ` Li Wang
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Mentz @ 2019-02-11 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Two comments below. Otherwise, I'm fine with this. I reviewed this
patch and found it to be working on an aarch64 platform.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> exec_func() is dummy/empty function. Try to align it so we don't
> need to worry about copying 2 pages. But also check that compiler
> aligned it and there's sufficient space between start of func_exec
> and end of page.
>
> This patch also removes copy_sz, which is now replaced with page_sz.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile | 2 +
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c | 55 +++++++++++--------------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> index bd617d806675..bc5c8bc10395 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> @@ -20,4 +20,6 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
>
> include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
>
> +mprotect04: CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64
> +
> include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> index 60941a4220d5..0f7890dca03b 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(testfunc);
>
> static volatile int sig_caught;
> static sigjmp_buf env;
> -static unsigned int copy_sz;
> +static unsigned int page_sz;
> typedef void (*func_ptr_t)(void);
>
> int main(int ac, char **av)
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> {
> tst_tmpdir();
> tst_sig(NOFORK, sighandler, cleanup);
> - copy_sz = getpagesize() * 2;
> + page_sz = getpagesize();
>
> TEST_PAUSE;
> }
> @@ -96,12 +96,9 @@ static void setup(void)
> static void testfunc_protnone(void)
> {
> char *addr;
> - int page_sz;
>
> sig_caught = 0;
>
> - page_sz = getpagesize();
> -
> addr = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>
> @@ -133,7 +130,7 @@ static void testfunc_protnone(void)
>
> #ifdef __ia64__
>
> -static char exec_func[] = {
> +static char exec_func[] __attribute__ ((aligned (64))) = {
> 0x11, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, /* nop.m 0x0 */
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0x00, 0x80, /* nop.i 0x0 */
> 0x08, 0x00, 0x84, 0x00, /* br.ret.sptk.many b0;; */
> @@ -210,42 +207,33 @@ typedef struct {
> * Copy page where &exec_func resides. Also try to copy subsequent page
> * in case exec_func is close to page boundary.
> */
> -static void *get_func(void *mem)
> +static void *get_func(void *mem, uintptr_t *func_page_offset)
> {
> uintptr_t page_sz = getpagesize();
> uintptr_t page_mask = ~(page_sz - 1);
> - uintptr_t func_page_offset;
> void *func_copy_start, *page_to_copy;
> void *mem_start = mem;
>
> #ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
> func_descr_t *opd = (func_descr_t *)&exec_func;
> - func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
> - func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
> + *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
> + func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
> page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)opd->entry & page_mask);
> #else
> - func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
> - func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
> + *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
> + func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
> page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)&exec_func & page_mask);
> #endif
> + tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p",
> + &exec_func, page_to_copy);
This was previously inside the body of the if statement right below.
Not sure if it was intended to always print this information, but I'm
fine either way.
>
> /* copy 1st page, if it's not present something is wrong */
> - if (!page_present(page_to_copy)) {
> - tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p\n",
> - &exec_func, page_to_copy);
> + if (!page_present(page_to_copy))
> tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "page_to_copy not present\n");
> - }
> - memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
>
> - /* copy 2nd page if possible */
> - mem += page_sz;
> - page_to_copy += page_sz;
> - if (page_present(page_to_copy))
> - memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
> - else
> - memset(mem, 0, page_sz);
> + memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
>
> - clear_cache(mem_start, copy_sz);
> + clear_cache(mem_start, page_sz);
>
> /* return pointer to area where copy of exec_func resides */
> return func_copy_start;
> @@ -256,23 +244,30 @@ static void *get_func(void *mem)
> static void testfunc_protexec(void)
> {
> func_ptr_t func;
> + uintptr_t func_page_offset;
> void *p;
>
> sig_caught = 0;
>
> - p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, copy_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>
> #ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
> func_descr_t opd;
> - opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p);
> + opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
> func = (func_ptr_t)&opd;
> #else
> - func = get_func(p);
> + func = get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
> #endif
>
> + if (func_page_offset + 64 >= page_sz) {
I'm wondering if this should be ">" not ">=". If the compiler decides
to use the last 64 bytes in a page and locates the function at offset
0xfc0, then that's still ok: 0xfc0 + 0x40 == page_sz
> + SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
> + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "func too close to page boundary, "
> + "maybe your compiler ignores -falign-functions?");
> + }
> +
> /* Change the protection to PROT_EXEC. */
> - TEST(mprotect(p, copy_sz, PROT_EXEC));
> + TEST(mprotect(p, page_sz, PROT_EXEC));
>
> if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
> tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "mprotect failed");
> @@ -294,7 +289,7 @@ static void testfunc_protexec(void)
> }
> }
>
> - SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, copy_sz);
> + SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
> }
>
> static void cleanup(void)
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes
2019-02-11 23:54 ` Daniel Mentz
@ 2019-02-12 7:40 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2019-02-12 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> Two comments below. Otherwise, I'm fine with this. I reviewed this
> patch and found it to be working on an aarch64 platform.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > exec_func() is dummy/empty function. Try to align it so we don't
> > need to worry about copying 2 pages. But also check that compiler
> > aligned it and there's sufficient space between start of func_exec
> > and end of page.
> >
> > This patch also removes copy_sz, which is now replaced with page_sz.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile | 2 +
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c | 55
> > +++++++++++--------------
> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> > index bd617d806675..bc5c8bc10395 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/Makefile
> > @@ -20,4 +20,6 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
> >
> > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
> >
> > +mprotect04: CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64
> > +
> > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> > index 60941a4220d5..0f7890dca03b 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mprotect/mprotect04.c
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(testfunc);
> >
> > static volatile int sig_caught;
> > static sigjmp_buf env;
> > -static unsigned int copy_sz;
> > +static unsigned int page_sz;
> > typedef void (*func_ptr_t)(void);
> >
> > int main(int ac, char **av)
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> > {
> > tst_tmpdir();
> > tst_sig(NOFORK, sighandler, cleanup);
> > - copy_sz = getpagesize() * 2;
> > + page_sz = getpagesize();
> >
> > TEST_PAUSE;
> > }
> > @@ -96,12 +96,9 @@ static void setup(void)
> > static void testfunc_protnone(void)
> > {
> > char *addr;
> > - int page_sz;
> >
> > sig_caught = 0;
> >
> > - page_sz = getpagesize();
> > -
> > addr = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> > MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1,
> > 0);
> >
> > @@ -133,7 +130,7 @@ static void testfunc_protnone(void)
> >
> > #ifdef __ia64__
> >
> > -static char exec_func[] = {
> > +static char exec_func[] __attribute__ ((aligned (64))) = {
> > 0x11, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, /* nop.m 0x0 */
> > 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0x00, 0x80, /* nop.i 0x0 */
> > 0x08, 0x00, 0x84, 0x00, /* br.ret.sptk.many b0;; */
> > @@ -210,42 +207,33 @@ typedef struct {
> > * Copy page where &exec_func resides. Also try to copy subsequent page
> > * in case exec_func is close to page boundary.
> > */
> > -static void *get_func(void *mem)
> > +static void *get_func(void *mem, uintptr_t *func_page_offset)
> > {
> > uintptr_t page_sz = getpagesize();
> > uintptr_t page_mask = ~(page_sz - 1);
> > - uintptr_t func_page_offset;
> > void *func_copy_start, *page_to_copy;
> > void *mem_start = mem;
> >
> > #ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
> > func_descr_t *opd = (func_descr_t *)&exec_func;
> > - func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
> > - func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
> > + *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)opd->entry & (page_sz - 1);
> > + func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
> > page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)opd->entry & page_mask);
> > #else
> > - func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
> > - func_copy_start = mem + func_page_offset;
> > + *func_page_offset = (uintptr_t)&exec_func & (page_sz - 1);
> > + func_copy_start = mem + *func_page_offset;
> > page_to_copy = (void *)((uintptr_t)&exec_func & page_mask);
> > #endif
> > + tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p",
> > + &exec_func, page_to_copy);
>
> This was previously inside the body of the if statement right below.
> Not sure if it was intended to always print this information, but I'm
> fine either way.
This was intentional, if we get a failure it seemed like good data.
>
> >
> > /* copy 1st page, if it's not present something is wrong */
> > - if (!page_present(page_to_copy)) {
> > - tst_resm(TINFO, "exec_func: %p, page_to_copy: %p\n",
> > - &exec_func, page_to_copy);
> > + if (!page_present(page_to_copy))
> > tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "page_to_copy not present\n");
> > - }
> > - memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
> >
> > - /* copy 2nd page if possible */
> > - mem += page_sz;
> > - page_to_copy += page_sz;
> > - if (page_present(page_to_copy))
> > - memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
> > - else
> > - memset(mem, 0, page_sz);
> > + memcpy(mem, page_to_copy, page_sz);
> >
> > - clear_cache(mem_start, copy_sz);
> > + clear_cache(mem_start, page_sz);
> >
> > /* return pointer to area where copy of exec_func resides */
> > return func_copy_start;
> > @@ -256,23 +244,30 @@ static void *get_func(void *mem)
> > static void testfunc_protexec(void)
> > {
> > func_ptr_t func;
> > + uintptr_t func_page_offset;
> > void *p;
> >
> > sig_caught = 0;
> >
> > - p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, copy_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> > + p = SAFE_MMAP(cleanup, 0, page_sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> > MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> >
> > #ifdef USE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
> > func_descr_t opd;
> > - opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p);
> > + opd.entry = (uintptr_t)get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
> > func = (func_ptr_t)&opd;
> > #else
> > - func = get_func(p);
> > + func = get_func(p, &func_page_offset);
> > #endif
> >
> > + if (func_page_offset + 64 >= page_sz) {
>
> I'm wondering if this should be ">" not ">=". If the compiler decides
> to use the last 64 bytes in a page and locates the function at offset
> 0xfc0, then that's still ok: 0xfc0 + 0x40 == page_sz
Agreed, I'll make it '>'.
>
> > + SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
> > + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "func too close to page boundary,
> > "
> > + "maybe your compiler ignores -falign-functions?");
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Change the protection to PROT_EXEC. */
> > - TEST(mprotect(p, copy_sz, PROT_EXEC));
> > + TEST(mprotect(p, page_sz, PROT_EXEC));
> >
> > if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
> > tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "mprotect failed");
> > @@ -294,7 +289,7 @@ static void testfunc_protexec(void)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, copy_sz);
> > + SAFE_MUNMAP(cleanup, p, page_sz);
> > }
> >
> > static void cleanup(void)
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes
2019-02-11 22:15 [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes Jan Stancek
2019-02-11 23:54 ` Daniel Mentz
@ 2019-02-19 13:29 ` Li Wang
2019-02-25 7:37 ` Jan Stancek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2019-02-19 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:15 AM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
> exec_func() is dummy/empty function. Try to align it so we don't
> need to worry about copying 2 pages. But also check that compiler
> aligned it and there's sufficient space between start of func_exec
> and end of page.
>
> This patch also removes copy_sz, which is now replaced with page_sz.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
>
Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> +mprotect04: CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64
>
One of my concern was this option maybe not supported by kind of compiler
and probably broken in the compiling phase. So I just submitted these
two(another is Daniel's) patches to Travis CI, the result looks good and no
compiler error found there.
https://travis-ci.com/wangli5665/ltp/builds/101429714
Beside that, I also manually tried that with old gcc(gcc version 4.1.2) and
verify that works fine.
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20190219/73dc6da9/attachment.html>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes
2019-02-19 13:29 ` Li Wang
@ 2019-02-25 7:37 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2019-02-25 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:15 AM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > exec_func() is dummy/empty function. Try to align it so we don't
> > need to worry about copying 2 pages. But also check that compiler
> > aligned it and there's sufficient space between start of func_exec
> > and end of page.
> >
> > This patch also removes copy_sz, which is now replaced with page_sz.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Pushed.
Regards,
Jan
>
>
> > +mprotect04: CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64
> >
>
> One of my concern was this option maybe not supported by kind of compiler
> and probably broken in the compiling phase. So I just submitted these
> two(another is Daniel's) patches to Travis CI, the result looks good and no
> compiler error found there.
> https://travis-ci.com/wangli5665/ltp/builds/101429714
>
> Beside that, I also manually tried that with old gcc(gcc version 4.1.2) and
> verify that works fine.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Li Wang
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-25 7:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-11 22:15 [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/mprotect: align exec_func to 64 bytes Jan Stancek
2019-02-11 23:54 ` Daniel Mentz
2019-02-12 7:40 ` Jan Stancek
2019-02-19 13:29 ` Li Wang
2019-02-25 7:37 ` Jan Stancek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox