On Thu, 28 May 2020, Yannick Cote wrote:
> This change makes the test feel more familiar with narrowing to a
> typical usage by operating on a number of identical structure instances
> and populating the same two new shadow variables symmetrically while
> keeping the same testing and verification criteria for the extra
> variables.
It changes the order of shadow vars allocation and freeing (now we
allocate everything first, while previously the order was more
complicated), but it does not matter, I think.
One nit below and I have to trust you with the output.
> Signed-off-by: Yannick Cote <ycote@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c | 182 ++++++++----------
> .../selftests/livepatch/test-shadow-vars.sh | 85 +++++---
> 2 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> index ec2635cff974..195309e1edf3 100644
> --- a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> +++ b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,11 @@ static int shadow_ctor(void *obj, void *shadow_data, void *ctor_data)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * With more than one item to free in the list, order is not determined and
> + * shadow_dtor will not be passed to shadow_free_all() which would make the
> + * test fail. (see pass 6)
> + */
> static void shadow_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
> {
> int **sv = shadow_data;
> @@ -136,6 +141,9 @@ static void shadow_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
> __func__, ptr_id(obj), ptr_id(sv));
> }
>
> +/* number of objects we simulate that need kpatch-patch shadow vars */
s/kpatch-patch// ?
Miroslav
