On 7/26/17 12:53 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
+
/*
* For non-cooperative userfaultfd test we fork() a process that will
* generate pagefaults, will mremap the area monitored by the
@@ -585,19 +598,54 @@ static int userfaultfd_open(int features)
* The release of the pages currently generates event for shmem and
* anonymous memory (UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE), hence it is not checked
* for hugetlb.
+ * For signal test(UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS), primarily test signal
+ * delivery and ensure no userfault events are generated.
Can you add some details about the tests? E.g. what is the meaning if
signal_test=1 and signal_test=2 and what is the difference between them?
Ok, I will.
*/
-static int faulting_process(void)
+static int faulting_process(int signal_test)
{
unsigned long nr;
unsigned long long count;
unsigned long split_nr_pages;
+ unsigned long lastnr;
+ struct sigaction act;
+ unsigned long signalled=0, sig_repeats = 0;
Spaces around that '=' ^
Will fix it.
if (test_type != TEST_HUGETLB)
split_nr_pages = (nr_pages + 1) / 2;
else
split_nr_pages = nr_pages;
+ if (signal_test) {
+ sigbuf = &jbuf;
+ memset (&act, 0, sizeof(act));
There should be no space between function name and open parenthesis.
ok
+ act.sa_sigaction = sighndl;
+ act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
+ if (sigaction(SIGBUS, &act, 0)) {
+ perror("sigaction");
+ return 1;
+ }
+ lastnr = (unsigned long)-1;
+ }
+
for (nr = 0; nr < split_nr_pages; nr++) {
+ if (signal_test) {
+ if (sigsetjmp(*sigbuf, 1) != 0) {
+ if (nr == lastnr) {
+ sig_repeats++;
+ continue;
If I understand correctly, when nr == lastnr we get a repeated signal for
the same page and this is an error, right?
Yes,
Why would we continue the test and won't return error immediately?
Yes, it could just return error. I will fix it.
+ }
+
+ lastnr = nr;
+ if (signal_test == 1) {
+ if (copy_page(uffd, nr * page_size))
+ signalled++;
+ } else {
+ signalled++;
+ continue;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
count = *area_count(area_dst, nr);
if (count != count_verify[nr]) {
fprintf(stderr,
@@ -607,6 +655,8 @@ static int faulting_process(void)
}
}
+ if (signal_test)
+ return signalled != split_nr_pages || sig_repeats != 0;
I believe return !(signalled == split_nr_pages && sig_repeats == 0) is
clearer.
And I blank line after the return statement would be nice :)
Ok.
Will send out v2 patch with the changes.
Thanks,
-Prakash
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
