Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>> -static inline unsigned int _rdpkey_reg(int line)
>> +static inline pkey_reg_t _rdpkey_reg(int line)
>> {
>> - unsigned int pkey_reg = __rdpkey_reg();
>> + pkey_reg_t pkey_reg = __rdpkey_reg();
>>
>> - dprintf4("rdpkey_reg(line=%d) pkey_reg: %x shadow: %x\n",
>> + dprintf4("rdpkey_reg(line=%d) pkey_reg: %016lx shadow: %016lx\n",
>> line, pkey_reg, shadow_pkey_reg);
>> assert(pkey_reg == shadow_pkey_reg);
>
> Hmm. So we're using %lx for an int? Doesn't the compiler complain
> about this?
It doesn't because dprintf4() doesn't have the annotation that tells the
compiler that it takes printf-like arguments. Once I add it:
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/pkey-helpers.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/pkey-helpers.h
@@ -54,6 +54,10 @@
#define DPRINT_IN_SIGNAL_BUF_SIZE 4096
extern int dprint_in_signal;
extern char dprint_in_signal_buffer[DPRINT_IN_SIGNAL_BUF_SIZE];
+
+#ifdef __GNUC__
+__attribute__((format(printf, 1, 2)))
+#endif
static inline void sigsafe_printf(const char *format, ...)
{
va_list ap;
Then it does complain about it. I'm working on a fix where each arch
will define a format string to use for its pkey_reg_t and use it like
this:
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/pkey-helpers.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/pkey-helpers.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#define u32 uint32_t
#define u64 uint64_t
#define pkey_reg_t u32
+#define PKEY_REG_FMT "%016x"
#ifdef __i386__
#ifndef SYS_mprotect_key
@@ -112,7 +113,8 @@ static inline pkey_reg_t _read_pkey_reg(int line)
{
pkey_reg_t pkey_reg = __read_pkey_reg();
- dprintf4("read_pkey_reg(line=%d) pkey_reg: %016lx shadow: %016lx\n",
+ dprintf4("read_pkey_reg(line=%d) pkey_reg: "PKEY_REG_FMT
+ " shadow: "PKEY_REG_FMT"\n",
line, pkey_reg, shadow_pkey_reg);
assert(pkey_reg == shadow_pkey_reg);
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
