[LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] pkey: add pkey02 test

[Li Wang]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:56 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> > +
> > +static void pkey_tests(int pkey, int prot, int flags, int fd)
> > +{
> > +     char *buffer;
> > +
> > +     if (fd == 0) {
> > +             fd = SAFE_OPEN(TEST_FILE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0664);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     buffer = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, psize, prot, flags, fd, 0);
> > +
> > +     if (pkey_mprotect(buffer, psize, prot, pkey) == -1)
> > +             tst_brk(TBROK, "pkey_mprotect failed");
> > +
> > +     tst_res(TPASS, "apply pkey to the buffer area success");
> > +
> > +     if (fd > 0) {
> > +             SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     SAFE_MUNMAP(buffer, psize);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Hi,
>
> pkey02 doesn't try to read/write as pkey01, but otherwise two tests look
> very similar.
>
> Could we try to read/write here as well for all combinations of map flags?
> Then pkey01 could be dropped since pkey02 would cover more than just 1
> combination.
> Or is there a different reason behind separate tests, that I'm missing?
>
>
The pkey02 is a follow new test idea(test more types of memory) after I
completed pkey01.

Yes, the diffenrence bettwen them is pkey02 cover more map flags but not do
R/W verification. That's because I'm hoping to add {0, 0x0} to the test
which does not trigger SIGSEGV in pkey02, it seems a bit tricky to
distinguish the SIGSEGV is come from 0x0(if bug there)
or PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS progress.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20190624/4bcdc3e7/attachment.html>