On 13/08/2019 17:24, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>> Added 3 simple mangle testcases that mess with the ucontext_t
>
> Add
>
>> from within the sig_handler, trying to toggle PSTATE mode bits to
>
> signal handler
>
>> trick the system into switching to EL1/EL2/EL3. Expects SIGSEGV
>> on test PASS.
Ok
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore | 3 ++
>> .../mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> .../mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el2.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> .../mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el2.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el3.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore
>> index 8a0a29f0cc2a..226bb179b673 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore
>> @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@
>> mangle_pstate_invalid_compat_toggle
>> mangle_pstate_invalid_daif_bits
>> +mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1
>> +mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el2
>> +mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el3
>
> What about having
>
> !*.[ch]
> mangle_*
>
> rather than having to update .gitignore to list every test executable?
>
Yes it reduces inter-dependencies between testcases patches in fact,
and in fact I already know all the possible name patterns on this set of tests:
mangle_ fake_sigreturn_
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..07aed7624383
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>> +/* Copyright (C) 2019 ARM Limited */
>> +
>> +#include "test_signals_utils.h"
>> +#include "testcases.h"
>> +
>> +static int mangle_invalid_pstate_run(struct tdescr *td, siginfo_t *si,
>> + ucontext_t *uc)
>> +{
>> + ASSERT_GOOD_CONTEXT(uc);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * This config should trigger a SIGSEGV by Kernel
>> + * when checking valid_user_regs()
>> + */
>> + uc->uc_mcontext.pstate &= ~PSR_MODE_MASK;
>> + uc->uc_mcontext.pstate |= PSR_MODE_EL1t;
>> +
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct tdescr tde = {
>> + .sanity_disabled = true,
>> + .name = "MANGLE_PSTATE_INVALID_MODE_EL1t",
>> + .descr = "Mangling uc_mcontext with INVALID MODE EL1t",
>> + .sig_trig = SIGUSR1,
>> + .sig_ok = SIGSEGV,
>> + .run = mangle_invalid_pstate_run,
>> +};
>
> These tests seem identical except for the EL number.
> Can we macro-ise them?
>
> mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1.c could become
>
> --8<--
>
> #include "mangle_pstate_invalid_mode.h"
>
> DEFINE_TESTCASE_MANGLE_PSTATE_INVALID_MODE(1)
>
> -->8--
Yes I'll do, and I'll split these 3 testcases in 6 macro-ized test cases to cover
all EL_x h/t variants (something you already told me in V2 I think)
Cheers
Cristian
>
> (for example).
>
> [...]
>
> Cheers
> ---Dave
>
