From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, msuchanek@suse.de,
aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/24] selftests, powerpc, x86 : Memory Protection Keys
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:58:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180615005854.GA5294@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c5c119b0-f5ca-4ddc-43c0-a6b597173973@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:19:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/14/2018 02:44 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> >Test
> >----
> >Verified for correctness on powerpc. Need help verifying on x86.
> >Compiles on x86.
>
> It breaks make in tools/testing/selftests/x86:
>
> make: *** No rule to make target `protection_keys.c', needed by
> `/home/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys_64'. Stop.
Ah.. it has to be taken out from the Makefile of
/home/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86/
The sources have been moved to /home/linux/tools/testing/selftests/mm/
>
> The generic implementation no longer builds 32-bit binaries. Is
> this the intent?
No. But building it 32-bit after moving it to a the new directory
needs some special code in the Makefile.
>
> It's possible to build 32-bit binaries with “make CC='gcc -m32'”, so
> perhaps this is good enough?
Dave Hansen did mention it, but he did not complain too much. So I kept
quite.
>
> But with that, I get a warning:
>
> protection_keys.c: In function ‘dump_mem’:
> protection_keys.c:172:3: warning: format ‘%lx’ expects argument of
> type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 4 has type ‘uint64_t’
> [-Wformat=]
> dprintf1("dump[%03d][@%p]: %016lx\n", i, ptr, *ptr);
> ^
>
> I suppose you could use %016llx and add a cast to unsigned long long
> to fix this.
yes.
>
> Anyway, both the 32-bit and 64-bit tests fail here:
>
> assert() at protection_keys.c::943 test_nr: 12 iteration: 1
> running abort_hooks()...
>
> I've yet checked what causes this. It's with the kernel headers
> from 4.17, but with other userspace headers based on glibc 2.17. I
> hope to look into this some more before the weekend, but I
> eventually have to return the test machine to the pool.
I wish I could get a x86 machine which could do memory keys. Had a AWS
instance, but struggled to boot my kernel. Can't get to the console...
gave up. If someone can give me a ready-made machine with support for
memkeys, I can quickly fix all the outstanding x86 issues. But if
someone can just fix it for me, .... ;)
RP
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-15 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-14 0:44 [PATCH v13 00/24] selftests, powerpc, x86 : Memory Protection Keys Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 01/24] selftests/x86: Move protecton key selftest to arch neutral directory Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 02/24] selftests/vm: rename all references to pkru to a generic name Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 03/24] selftests/vm: move generic definitions to header file Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 04/24] selftests/vm: move arch-specific definitions to arch-specific header Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 05/24] selftests/vm: Make gcc check arguments of sigsafe_printf() Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 06/24] selftests/vm: typecast the pkey register Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 07/24] selftests/vm: generic function to handle shadow key register Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:44 ` [PATCH v13 08/24] selftests/vm: fix the wrong assert in pkey_disable_set() Ram Pai
2018-06-20 14:47 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 15:58 ` Ram Pai
2018-07-17 17:53 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 09/24] selftests/vm: fixed bugs in pkey_disable_clear() Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 10/24] selftests/vm: clear the bits in shadow reg when a pkey is freed Ram Pai
2018-06-20 14:49 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:00 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 11/24] selftests/vm: fix alloc_random_pkey() to make it really random Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 12/24] selftests/vm: introduce two arch independent abstraction Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 13/24] selftests/vm: pkey register should match shadow pkey Ram Pai
2018-06-20 14:53 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:02 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 14/24] selftests/vm: generic cleanup Ram Pai
2018-06-20 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 15/24] selftests/vm: powerpc implementation for generic abstraction Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 16/24] selftests/vm: clear the bits in shadow reg when a pkey is freed Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:07 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:03 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 17/24] selftests/vm: powerpc implementation to check support for pkey Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:09 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:05 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 18/24] selftests/vm: fix an assertion in test_pkey_alloc_exhaust() Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:11 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:08 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 19/24] selftests/vm: associate key on a mapped page and detect access violation Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:16 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:13 ` Ram Pai
2018-07-17 17:56 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 19:10 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 20/24] selftests/vm: associate key on a mapped page and detect write violation Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 21/24] selftests/vm: detect write violation on a mapped access-denied-key page Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 22/24] selftests/vm: testcases must restore pkey-permissions Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:20 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-17 16:09 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 23/24] selftests/vm: sub-page allocator Ram Pai
2018-06-14 0:45 ` [PATCH v13 24/24] selftests/vm: test correct behavior of pkey-0 Ram Pai
2018-06-20 15:22 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-14 20:19 ` [PATCH v13 00/24] selftests, powerpc, x86 : Memory Protection Keys Florian Weimer
2018-06-15 0:58 ` Ram Pai [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180615005854.GA5294@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=msuchanek@suse.de \
--cc=shuahkh@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).