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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7785BC11F68 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E59661469 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:56:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2E59661469 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AA5C28D0284; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 21:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A55148D0279; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 21:56:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8F6988D0284; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 21:56:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0031.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.31]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9568D0279 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 21:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin36.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C54182E86BE for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:56:58 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78312355716.36.A88A55E Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41EFB000378 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6FD661469; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:56:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1625104617; bh=tBU1UmFCF+nvvGh9zqvUY0uSqlTwG6FcC0wPmXxNgJM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=tGoiRx1rmhdgClcaMbADGP0IHyziBJrwcjJ2mia7LY1sCL4Yt/Twj7jdvdMGHyjgA kT0GsXnabU5Jcf2YKCdsPCw8yiOaSHQ83nJMp8PqoXyZPgx+JMn8aIe/ecv4Yp91zE 7Yfe8eRjG0QI5sg29XRIHhfO3oSZalqmdpDVWQko= Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:56:56 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, bauerman@linux.ibm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, desnesn@linux.vnet.ibm.com, fweimer@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, msuchanek@suse.de, sandipan@linux.ibm.com, shuah@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: [patch 185/192] selftests/vm/pkeys: handle negative sys_pkey_alloc() return code Message-ID: <20210701015656.FzKVF4eCF%akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210630184624.9ca1937310b0dd5ce66b30e7@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: s-nail v14.8.16 Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=tGoiRx1r; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-Stat-Signature: jhiep1zxko9b9e77kk5ojjathwmm3ei4 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F41EFB000378 X-HE-Tag: 1625104617-164068 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: From: Dave Hansen Subject: selftests/vm/pkeys: handle negative sys_pkey_alloc() return code The alloc_pkey() sefltest function wraps the sys_pkey_alloc() system call. On success, it updates its "shadow" register value because sys_pkey_alloc() updates the real register. But, the success check is wrong. pkey_alloc() considers any non-zero return code to indicate success where the pkey register will be modified. This fails to take negative return codes into account. Consider only a positive return value as a successful call. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210611164157.87AB4246@viggo.jf.intel.com Fixes: 5f23f6d082a9 ("x86/pkeys: Add self-tests") Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Tested-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V Cc: Ram Pai Cc: Sandipan Das Cc: Florian Weimer Cc: "Desnes A. Nunes do Rosario" Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Michael Ellerman Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Michal Suchanek Cc: Shuah Khan Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c~selftests-vm-pkeys-handle-negative-sys_pkey_alloc-return-code +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ int alloc_pkey(void) " shadow: 0x%016llx\n", __func__, __LINE__, ret, __read_pkey_reg(), shadow_pkey_reg); - if (ret) { + if (ret > 0) { /* clear both the bits: */ shadow_pkey_reg = set_pkey_bits(shadow_pkey_reg, ret, ~PKEY_MASK); _