Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 07 Aug 2023 23:00:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4 29/36] kselftest/arm64: Allow signals tests to specify
 an expected si_code
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20230807-arm64-gcs-v4-29-68cfa37f9069@kernel.org>
References: <20230807-arm64-gcs-v4-0-68cfa37f9069@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230807-arm64-gcs-v4-0-68cfa37f9069@kernel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        "Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
Cc:     "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Currently we ignore si_code unless the expected signal is a SIGSEGV, in
which case we enforce it being SEGV_ACCERR. Allow test cases to specify
exactly which si_code should be generated so we can validate this, and
test for other segfault codes.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 .../testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h  |  4 +++
 .../selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c    | 29 ++++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
index 7ada43688c02..ee75a2c25ce7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
@@ -71,6 +71,10 @@ struct tdescr {
 	 * Zero when no signal is expected on success
 	 */
 	int			sig_ok;
+	/*
+	 * expected si_code for sig_ok, or 0 to not check
+	 */
+	int			sig_ok_code;
 	/* signum expected on unsupported CPU features. */
 	int			sig_unsupp;
 	/* a timeout in second for test completion */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
index 89ef95c1af0e..63deca32b0df 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
@@ -143,16 +143,25 @@ static bool handle_signal_ok(struct tdescr *td,
 			"current->token ZEROED...test is probably broken!\n");
 		abort();
 	}
-	/*
-	 * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones generated by Kernel itself
-	 * via arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort check anyway, and
-	 * the si_code check may need to change if this aspect of the kernel
-	 * ABI changes.
-	 */
-	if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) {
-		fprintf(stdout,
-			"si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n");
-		abort();
+	if (td->sig_ok_code) {
+		if (si->si_code != td->sig_ok_code) {
+			fprintf(stdout, "si_code is %d not %d\n",
+				si->si_code, td->sig_ok_code);
+			abort();
+		}
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * Trying to narrow down the SEGV to the ones
+		 * generated by Kernel itself via
+		 * arm64_notify_segfault(). This is a best-effort
+		 * check anyway, and the si_code check may need to
+		 * change if this aspect of the kernel ABI changes.
+		 */
+		if (td->sig_ok == SIGSEGV && si->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR) {
+			fprintf(stdout,
+				"si_code != SEGV_ACCERR...test is probably broken!\n");
+			abort();
+		}
 	}
 	td->pass = 1;
 	/*

-- 
2.30.2