On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> cleanup the code to satisfy coding styles.
>
> cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
> cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 81 ++++++++++++++------------
> 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> index 6054093..6fdd8f5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> *
> * There are examples in here of:
> * * how to set protection keys on memory
> - * * how to set/clear bits in pkey registers (the rights register)
> + * * how to set/clear bits in Protection Key registers (the rights register)
I don't think CodingStyle says to do this. :)
> * * how to handle SEGV_PKUERR signals and extract pkey-relevant
> * information from the siginfo
> *
> @@ -13,13 +13,18 @@
> * prefault pages in at malloc, or not
> * protect MPX bounds tables with protection keys?
> * make sure VMA splitting/merging is working correctly
> - * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()), so make sure it is immune to pkeys
> - * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA but "freed" back to the kernel
> - * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make sure the pkey sticks
> + * OOMs can destroy mm->mmap (see exit_mmap()),
> + * so make sure it is immune to pkeys
> + * look for pkey "leaks" where it is still set on a VMA
> + * but "freed" back to the kernel
> + * do a plain mprotect() to a mprotect_pkey() area and make
> + * sure the pkey sticks
Ram, I'm not sure where this came from, but this looks horrid. Please
don't do this to the file
> * Compile like this:
> - * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
> - * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
> + * gcc -o protection_keys -O2 -g -std=gnu99
> + * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
> + * gcc -m32 -o protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99
> + * -pthread -Wall protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
> */
Please just leave this, or remove it from the file. It was a long line
so it could be copied and pasted, this ruins that.
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <errno.h>
> @@ -251,26 +256,11 @@ void signal_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *vucontext)
> dprintf1("signal pkey_reg from pkey_reg: %016lx\n", __rdpkey_reg());
> dprintf1("pkey from siginfo: %jx\n", siginfo_pkey);
> *(u64 *)pkey_reg_ptr = 0x00000000;
> - dprintf1("WARNING: set PRKU=0 to allow faulting instruction to continue\n");
> + dprintf1("WARNING: set PKEY_REG=0 to allow faulting instruction "
> + "to continue\n");
> pkey_faults++;
> dprintf1("<<<<==================================================\n");
> return;
> - if (trapno == 14) {
> - fprintf(stderr,
> - "ERROR: In signal handler, page fault, trapno = %d, ip = %016lx\n",
> - trapno, ip);
> - fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);
> - fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",
> - (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);
> - exit(1);
> - } else {
> - fprintf(stderr, "unexpected trap %d! at 0x%lx\n", trapno, ip);
> - fprintf(stderr, "si_addr %p\n", si->si_addr);
> - fprintf(stderr, "REG_ERR: %lx\n",
> - (unsigned long)uctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_ERR]);
> - exit(2);
> - }
> - dprint_in_signal = 0;
> }
I think this is just randomly removing code now.
I think you should probably just drop this patch. It's not really
brining anything useful.
