[LTP] [PATCH v4 ltp] Add Intel umip(User Mode Instruction Prevention) basic function tests
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
Wed Jan 16 14:45:24 CET 2019
Hi!
> +static void sig_handler(int signal)
> +{
> + int exp_sigsegv = 11;
> +
> + if (exp_sigsegv == signal) {
> + sigsegv_cnt++;
> + tst_res(TPASS, "Received SIGSEGV signal:%d, num:%d",
> + signal, sigsegv_cnt);
> + // signal handler by app, kernel will not kill, need exit
> + exit(EXIT_VALUE);
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TWARN, "Received unexpected signal:%d", signal);
> + SAFE_KILL(pid, SIGINT);
> + }
> +}
I think I already tried to explain that signal handler runs
asynchronously to the rest of the code and that calling anything else
than a few signal-async-safe functions may cause undefined behavior,
which mostly translates to deadlocks.
Why can't we write the test as:
static void asm_sgdt(void)
{
unsigned char val[GDT_LEN];
tst_res(TINFO, "TEST sgdt, sgdt result save at [%p]", val);
asm volatile("sgdt %0\n" : "=m" (val));
exit(0);
}
...
static void do_test(unsigned int n)
{
int pid, status;
pid = SAFE_FORK();
if (!pid) {
switch (n) {
case 0:
asm_sgdt();
break;
...
}
}
SAFE_WAITPID(pid, &status, 0);
if (WIFSIGNALED(status) && WTERMSIG(status) == SIGSEGV) {
tst_res(TPASS, "Got SIGSEGV");
return;
}
tst_res(TFAIL, "Child exitted with %s", tst_strstatus(status));
}
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
More information about the ltp
mailing list