On 07/17/2018 06:49 AM, 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 | 64 +++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> index f50cce8..304f74f 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)
Huh? Which coding style says that we can't say "pkey"?
> * * 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
This makes it work substantially worse. That's not acceptable, even if
you did move it under 80 columns.
> * 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
> */
Why was this on one line? Because it was easier to copy and paste.
Please leave it on one line, CodingStyle be damned.
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <errno.h>
> @@ -263,10 +268,12 @@ void signal_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *vucontext)
> __read_pkey_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");
It's actually totally OK to let printk strings go over 80 columns.
> pkey_faults++;
> dprintf1("<<<<==================================================\n");
> dprint_in_signal = 0;
> + return;
> }
Now we're just being silly.
>
> int wait_all_children(void)
> @@ -384,7 +391,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags)
> {
> unsigned long syscall_flags = 0;
> int ret;
> - int pkey_rights;
> + u32 pkey_rights;
This is not CodingStyle. Shouldn't this be the pkey_reg_t that you
introduced earlier in the series?
> -int sys_pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_val)
> +int sys_pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, u64 init_val)
> {
Um, this is actually a 'unsigned long' in the ABI.
Can you go back through this and actually make sure that these are real
coding style cleanups?
