The abi_test currently uses a long sized test value for enablement
checks. On LE this works fine, however, on BE this results in inaccurate
assert checks due to a bit being used and assuming it's value is the
same on both LE and BE.
Use int type for 32-bit values and long type for 64-bit values to ensure
appropriate behavior on both LE and BE.
Fixes: 60b1af8de8c1 ("tracing/user_events: Add ABI self-test")
Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c | 16 +++++++++-------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
index 5125c42efe65..67af4c491c0c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static int change_event(bool enable)
return ret;
}
-static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
+static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
{
struct user_reg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
return ret;
}
-static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
+static int reg_disable(void *enable, int bit)
{
struct user_unreg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
@@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
}
FIXTURE(user) {
- long check;
+ int check;
+ long check_long;
};
FIXTURE_SETUP(user) {
change_event(false);
self->check = 0;
+ self->check_long = 0;
}
FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(user) {
@@ -131,9 +133,9 @@ TEST_F(user, bit_sizes) {
#if BITS_PER_LONG == 8
/* Allow 0-64 bits for 64-bit */
- ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 63));
- ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 64));
- ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check, 63));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 63));
+ ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 64));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check_long, 63));
#endif
/* Disallowed sizes (everything beside 4 and 8) */
@@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ static int clone_check(void *check)
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
usleep(100000);
- if (*(long *)check)
+ if (*(int *)check)
return 0;
}
--
2.34.1
Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
-- Steve
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:08:29 +0000
Beau Belgrave <[email protected]> wrote:
> The abi_test currently uses a long sized test value for enablement
> checks. On LE this works fine, however, on BE this results in inaccurate
> assert checks due to a bit being used and assuming it's value is the
> same on both LE and BE.
>
> Use int type for 32-bit values and long type for 64-bit values to ensure
> appropriate behavior on both LE and BE.
>
> Fixes: 60b1af8de8c1 ("tracing/user_events: Add ABI self-test")
> Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> index 5125c42efe65..67af4c491c0c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static int change_event(bool enable)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
> +static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
> {
> struct user_reg reg = {0};
> int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
> +static int reg_disable(void *enable, int bit)
> {
> struct user_unreg reg = {0};
> int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
> @@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
> }
>
> FIXTURE(user) {
> - long check;
> + int check;
> + long check_long;
> };
>
> FIXTURE_SETUP(user) {
> change_event(false);
> self->check = 0;
> + self->check_long = 0;
> }
>
> FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(user) {
> @@ -131,9 +133,9 @@ TEST_F(user, bit_sizes) {
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG == 8
> /* Allow 0-64 bits for 64-bit */
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 63));
> - ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 64));
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check, 63));
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 63));
> + ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 64));
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check_long, 63));
> #endif
>
> /* Disallowed sizes (everything beside 4 and 8) */
> @@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ static int clone_check(void *check)
> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
> usleep(100000);
>
> - if (*(long *)check)
> + if (*(int *)check)
> return 0;
> }
>
On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
> patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into
linux-kselftest next
Steve! Does that work for you?
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600
Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
> > patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> >
>
> Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into
> linux-kselftest next
>
> Steve! Does that work for you?
>
I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go
separately through your tree.
-- Steve
On 10/4/23 09:14, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600
> Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>
>>> Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
>>> patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
>>>
>>> -- Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into
>> linux-kselftest next
>>
>> Steve! Does that work for you?
>>
>
> I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go
> separately through your tree.
>
Yes I will apply this to linux-kselftest fixes branch once my PR
clears.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On 10/4/23 10:38, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/4/23 09:14, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600
>> Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
>>>> patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
>>>>
>>>> -- Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into
>>> linux-kselftest next
>>>
>>> Steve! Does that work for you?
>>>
>>
>> I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go
>> separately through your tree.
>>
>
>
> Yes I will apply this to linux-kselftest fixes branch once my PR
> clears.
>
Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to
linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes
since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events
Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for
this patch.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:48:14 -0600
Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to
> linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes
> since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events
>
> Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for
> this patch.
Hmm, so this didn't apply to my tree nor yours.
Beau, can you verify which tree this goes to?
-- Steve
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 11:08:15AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:48:14 -0600
> Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to
> > linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes
> > since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events
> >
> > Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for
> > this patch.
>
> Hmm, so this didn't apply to my tree nor yours.
>
> Beau, can you verify which tree this goes to?
>
> -- Steve
It was based on tracing/for-next.
I'll get a v2 out rebased upon linux-kselftest, does that work?
Thanks,
-Beau
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 09:52:30 -0700
Beau Belgrave <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was based on tracing/for-next.
>
> I'll get a v2 out rebased upon linux-kselftest, does that work?
Hmm, then it should have applied to my tree. I didn't look too deep.
Can you see if it applies to:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git
trace/for-next ?
Thanks,
-- Steve