Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1605046192.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <bd6825832c0cb376fc68ad61ffec6d829401ed0e.1605046192.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <CAG_fn=XpB5ZQagAm6bqR1z+6hWdmk_shH0x8ShAx0qpmjMsp5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=XpB5ZQagAm6bqR1z+6hWdmk_shH0x8ShAx0qpmjMsp5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:09:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMaDkKBtWF8y22rhc6bFNN0CrXgfGNKXBLPvz3c2wd7rA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 44/44] kselftest/arm64: Check GCR_EL1 after context switch
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 16:59, Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:12 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
> >
> > This test is specific to MTE and verifies that the GCR_EL1 register
> > is context switched correctly.
> >
> > It spawn 1024 processes and each process spawns 5 threads. Each thread
>
> Nit: "spawns"
>
>
> > +       srand(time(NULL) ^ (pid << 16) ^ (tid << 16));
> > +
> > +       prctl_tag_mask = rand() % 0xffff;
>
> Nit: if you want values between 0 and 0xffff you probably want to use
> bitwise AND.

Another question would be, is the max here meant to be 0xffff or
0xffff-1. Because, as-is now, it's 0xffff-1. Only one of them has a
trivial conversion to bitwise AND ( x % 2^n == x & (2^n - 1) ).