[LTP] [PATCH] userfaultfd05: handle kernels rejecting WP feature in UFFDIO_API
Petr Vorel
pvorel@suse.cz
Fri Jan 23 12:53:17 CET 2026
> > > if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) < 0) {
> > > - if (!(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_PAGEFAULT_FLAG_WP))
> > > - tst_brk(TCONF, "UFFD write-protect unsupported");
> > > + int err = errno;
> > > + if (err == EINVAL) {
> > > + uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> > > + uffdio_api.features = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0)
> > > + tst_brk(TCONF, "UFFD write-protect unsupported");
> > > + }
> > Wouldn't be better in this case to check kconfig for
> > CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP (untested, but it should work
> That's true, it would be simpler, let's go with this method.
> > Back to our discussion about how often using kconfig [1]. While I prefer to
> > avoid using it for tristate (kernel might be configured but module missing), but
> > here is just a feature.
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/CAASaF6wOSvi+07Pq5O6+f1Hkrq6WWMgpCaooJxWrO9uOvRM3pw@mail.gmail.com/
> I don’t think there is a single “standard” answer for feature detection;
> it really depends on the specific situation.
> For the UFFD-WP feature the situation is: there isn’t really a boot
> parameter or runtime knob that disables UFFD-WP independently once the
> interface is present. Given that, a simpler approach is to rely on Kconfig
> checks.
> This is especially relevant here because different kernels report “WP
> unsupported” differently (e.g. return -1/EINVAL vs return 0 with a
> different feature mask), which makes runtime-based detection more
> complicated.
Yes, for the discussion when to use I'd propose to *not* use kconfig if:
* boot parameter to enable/disable exist
* check for tristate (functionality which can be compiled as module)
* kernel new functionality which is unlikely to be backported (use .min_kver instead)
Unless some objection, I'll post a patch for ground rules.
Kind regards,
Petr
More information about the ltp
mailing list