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 B4EB2EB64D7 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98603C9A09 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:22:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D083C99C0 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:22:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (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-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E23310000D3 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:22:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 791DD1F896; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:22:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1687771350; h=from:from: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=GzWx2RCyTvYZjXOUuoshOc5SAqOeHJjXEzSZyaMXcQE=; b=A6qzFFmXJOP0SkUCb/EUwDSeh25r+NrhNALb+TElwt9VmldyIkNjcbW1HpkkSc0Ej9DUqG x8IOhjRzcEw1ZAt6sOBoYYBYLdKoi602topctAk41G26YedBu2zhX5r5nG/sDDCeujDP9X oa51uxOpP0Znl99Q31bTlvb3jFpwwas= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1687771350; h=from:from: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=GzWx2RCyTvYZjXOUuoshOc5SAqOeHJjXEzSZyaMXcQE=; b=ukhs+uJ3iRUqxXgvAVyj7Gg5OQ4Z0jLMeg9HNNK7lGjcESrTyaPdNWmR7iuJ90pK2sFgom VJYxP2+giYwuN5Dg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9704E13483; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id t1TvMNNYmWS8bAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:22:27 +0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:23:27 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20230615093933.3185297-1-dylan@andestech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] hugeshmctl02: Skipped EFAULT tests for libc variant 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: , Cc: minachou@andestech.com, tim609@andestech.com, x5710999x@gmail.com, 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! > You pointed the segment fault only exists on 32bit when use > libc wrapper, but this condition skips for both 64and32 bits, > isn't it? > > I guess the strict condition should be as below? > > if (tcases[i].error == EFAULT && tv->shmctl == libc_shmctl && > tst_kernel_bits() == 32) { > ... > } Actually I think that it may be safer to skip libc version regardless, as long as we have the raw syscall test in place we are not getting any more coverage from passing invalid address to the libc call, since either the libc call is thin wrapper, i.e. equivalent to the syscall() call which we already test, or it does something to the arguments, in which case it's possible to trigger segfault, if not now in some future libc versions. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp