From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F67CC3DA64 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E303D1F3F for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:41:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0095C3D1EB2 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:41:13 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-3.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 596851A00E4D for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:41:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D85771FB3E; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:41:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1722505271; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4PBf3yvGj2Lbe5vDKu46czTj5OLzTRiJzLaXeHBIkXo=; b=sZA3j6a7QCr1hBPkIO0FIx5E6GdyJ9vPQAUIsMabi7DSTJV/7TuVNRJAP7wwG3YiNA8Dce sxcxM7awe6JHpKZ2orGuvKbWyaZZuUalQjfCuWON0kL4gVZn9yeFwkw9eqfytZ67zkWWP1 8D4Wii+Ft/Y1ZKCLrZ5eJX3t9kIAiJM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1722505271; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4PBf3yvGj2Lbe5vDKu46czTj5OLzTRiJzLaXeHBIkXo=; b=8donM5o2YkdfCZ84QMXL3cL+M8tEaKVy0qw3lwxOcGoXFWZVSt70Rc94l1CUa4ESdVgDfD gLS7RPvRG0ZqiCCw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1722505271; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4PBf3yvGj2Lbe5vDKu46czTj5OLzTRiJzLaXeHBIkXo=; b=sZA3j6a7QCr1hBPkIO0FIx5E6GdyJ9vPQAUIsMabi7DSTJV/7TuVNRJAP7wwG3YiNA8Dce sxcxM7awe6JHpKZ2orGuvKbWyaZZuUalQjfCuWON0kL4gVZn9yeFwkw9eqfytZ67zkWWP1 8D4Wii+Ft/Y1ZKCLrZ5eJX3t9kIAiJM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1722505271; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4PBf3yvGj2Lbe5vDKu46czTj5OLzTRiJzLaXeHBIkXo=; b=8donM5o2YkdfCZ84QMXL3cL+M8tEaKVy0qw3lwxOcGoXFWZVSt70Rc94l1CUa4ESdVgDfD gLS7RPvRG0ZqiCCw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB497136CF; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id FnzCJzdYq2aaKgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:41:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:41:08 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20240801094108.GB1487933@pevik> References: <20240718065532.20188-1-maxj.fnst@fujitsu.com> <20240729225700.GA1311523@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:replyto]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] getcpu: Add testcase for EFAULT X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > > +static void run(void) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int cpu_id, node_id = 0; > > > + > > > + TST_EXP_FAIL(getcpu(tst_get_bad_addr(NULL), &node_id), EFAULT); > > I'm not sure why, but I get SIGSEGV due tst_get_bad_addr(NULL) on various > > kernels (SLES 5.14.21, Tumbleweed 6.5.1, 6.10, Debian 6.9, ...). > > But the test works on SLES 4.4.180. > If you are getting SIGSEGV that means that the address is used in > userspace. Looking at man getcpu() it suggests that on some > architectures it may be implemented as VDSO, which would explain it. > So I suppose that the easies solution here would be to run the test in a > child process and accepting SIGSEGV as a correct outcome as well. Thanks, Cyril. Ma Xinjian, could you please send another version? You can get inspiration in: testcases/kernel/syscalls/setrlimit/setrlimit05.c Or in others: $ git grep -l .forks_child $(git grep -l SIGSEGV) Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp