Fix tst-pkey.c pkey_alloc return checks and manual
diff mbox series

Message ID 20200116133912.2578-1-lamm@linux.ibm.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • Fix tst-pkey.c pkey_alloc return checks and manual
Related show

Commit Message

Lucas A. M. Magalhaes Jan. 16, 2020, 1:39 p.m. UTC
This test was failing in some powerpc systems as it was not checking
for ENOSPC return.

As said on the Linux man-pages and can be observed by the implementation
at mm/mprotect.c in the Linux Kernel source.  The syscall pkey_alloc can
return EINVAL or ENOSPC.  ENOSPC will indicate either that all keys are
in use or that the kernel does not support pkeys.
---
 manual/memory.texi                 | 4 ++++
 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

Comments

Florian Weimer Jan. 16, 2020, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #1
* Lucas A. M. Magalhaes:

> This test was failing in some powerpc systems as it was not checking
> for ENOSPC return.
>
> As said on the Linux man-pages and can be observed by the implementation
> at mm/mprotect.c in the Linux Kernel source.  The syscall pkey_alloc can
> return EINVAL or ENOSPC.  ENOSPC will indicate either that all keys are
> in use or that the kernel does not support pkeys.
> ---
>  manual/memory.texi                 | 4 ++++
>  sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/manual/memory.texi b/manual/memory.texi
> index b565dd69f2..aa5011e4f9 100644
> --- a/manual/memory.texi
> +++ b/manual/memory.texi
> @@ -3288,6 +3288,10 @@ in which memory protection keys are disabled.
>  
>  @item ENOSPC
>  All available protection keys already have been allocated.
> +
> +The system does not implement memory protection keys or runs in a mode
> +in which memory protection keys are disabled.
> +
>  @end table
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
> index 4c4fbae3ad..4ea1bc4f9a 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
> @@ -197,6 +197,10 @@ do_test (void)
>        if (errno == EINVAL)
>          FAIL_UNSUPPORTED
>            ("CPU does not support memory protection keys: %m");
> +      if (errno == ENOSPC)
> +        FAIL_UNSUPPORTED
> +          ("no keys available or kernel does not support memory"
> +           " protection keys");
>        FAIL_EXIT1 ("pkey_alloc: %m");
>      }
>    TEST_COMPARE (pkey_get (keys[0]), 0);

Looks okay to me.

Siddhesh has to approve this as the release manager, though.

Thanks,
Florian
Siddhesh Poyarekar Jan. 16, 2020, 1:51 p.m. UTC | #2
On 16/01/20 7:18 pm, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Looks okay to me.
> 
> Siddhesh has to approve this as the release manager, though.
> 

This is OK for master.

Thanks,
Siddhesh
Gabriel F. T. Gomes Jan. 16, 2020, 1:57 p.m. UTC | #3
Hi, Lucas,

Thanks for doing this.  This failure has haunted my Debian systems for
a long time.

The patch looks good to me.  I only have a cosmetic suggestion.

Reviewed-by: Gabriel F. T. Gomes <gabriel@inconstante.net.br>

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:

> This test was failing in some powerpc systems as it was not checking
> for ENOSPC return.
> 
> As said on the Linux man-pages and can be observed by the implementation
> at mm/mprotect.c in the Linux Kernel source.  The syscall pkey_alloc can
> return EINVAL or ENOSPC.  ENOSPC will indicate either that all keys are
> in use or that the kernel does not support pkeys.

Good commit message.

> --- a/manual/memory.texi
> +++ b/manual/memory.texi
> @@ -3288,6 +3288,10 @@ in which memory protection keys are disabled.
>  
>  @item ENOSPC
>  All available protection keys already have been allocated.
> +
> +The system does not implement memory protection keys or runs in a mode
> +in which memory protection keys are disabled.
> +

I think the wording at the commit message is better, because it makes
it clear that it's one situation or the other, so maybe:

  Either all available protection keys already have been allocated, or
  the system does not implement memory protection keys, or runs in a
  mode in which memory protection keys are disabled.
Lucas A. M. Magalhaes Jan. 16, 2020, 2:27 p.m. UTC | #4
Quoting Gabriel F. T. Gomes (2020-01-16 10:57:53)
> Hi, Lucas,
> 
> Thanks for doing this.  This failure has haunted my Debian systems for
> a long time.
> 
> The patch looks good to me.  I only have a cosmetic suggestion.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Gabriel F. T. Gomes <gabriel@inconstante.net.br>
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:
> 
> > This test was failing in some powerpc systems as it was not checking
> > for ENOSPC return.
> > 
> > As said on the Linux man-pages and can be observed by the implementation
> > at mm/mprotect.c in the Linux Kernel source.  The syscall pkey_alloc can
> > return EINVAL or ENOSPC.  ENOSPC will indicate either that all keys are
> > in use or that the kernel does not support pkeys.
> 
> Good commit message.
> 
> > --- a/manual/memory.texi
> > +++ b/manual/memory.texi
> > @@ -3288,6 +3288,10 @@ in which memory protection keys are disabled.
> >  
> >  @item ENOSPC
> >  All available protection keys already have been allocated.
> > +
> > +The system does not implement memory protection keys or runs in a mode
> > +in which memory protection keys are disabled.
> > +
> 
> I think the wording at the commit message is better, because it makes
> it clear that it's one situation or the other, so maybe:
> 
>   Either all available protection keys already have been allocated, or
>   the system does not implement memory protection keys, or runs in a
>   mode in which memory protection keys are disabled.

Thanks Gabriel,

I actually agree with you, but I'm folowing the pattern of the EINVAL
explanation.  So I prefere leaving as it is. Maybe, in a furure patch,
change both return explanations in the way you suggest.
Gabriel F. T. Gomes Jan. 16, 2020, 3:07 p.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:

> I actually agree with you, but I'm folowing the pattern of the EINVAL
> explanation.  So I prefere leaving as it is. Maybe, in a furure patch,
> change both return explanations in the way you suggest.

Fair enough. :)
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho Jan. 17, 2020, 12:40 p.m. UTC | #6
Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> writes:

> On 16/01/20 7:18 pm, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Looks okay to me.
>> 
>> Siddhesh has to approve this as the release manager, though.
>
> This is OK for master.

Pushed as 70ba28f7ab2923d4e36ffc9d5d2e32357353b25c.

Thanks!

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/manual/memory.texi b/manual/memory.texi
index b565dd69f2..aa5011e4f9 100644
--- a/manual/memory.texi
+++ b/manual/memory.texi
@@ -3288,6 +3288,10 @@  in which memory protection keys are disabled.
 
 @item ENOSPC
 All available protection keys already have been allocated.
+
+The system does not implement memory protection keys or runs in a mode
+in which memory protection keys are disabled.
+
 @end table
 @end deftypefun
 
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
index 4c4fbae3ad..4ea1bc4f9a 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c
@@ -197,6 +197,10 @@  do_test (void)
       if (errno == EINVAL)
         FAIL_UNSUPPORTED
           ("CPU does not support memory protection keys: %m");
+      if (errno == ENOSPC)
+        FAIL_UNSUPPORTED
+          ("no keys available or kernel does not support memory"
+           " protection keys");
       FAIL_EXIT1 ("pkey_alloc: %m");
     }
   TEST_COMPARE (pkey_get (keys[0]), 0);