From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92A661F5A2 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:46:14 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=tNx l+VQej8SKfQzgOpgZk3LLZXdfdVCUZBidmIxrJd3eG5EGed6BhEJPtGOBeM5ETRo H32Kp5ieDptmyHjKirBiYK/Xa3cnslxDpgpqTMR0g6aJfMyUweNRU1q0F03pG1jd I4kyaA2odJbx4Ib52M5bqKpj1QMfyReCcDriDrrE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=xIpTZ7ibN qF6Qm0CgnKVAazaGaA=; b=vhlYoaNCC6JaeWEXW+3U+3HxQjVDey6/lRJgPN07o qjEB9ShG+mfDJMKN4BzloKPcTaNCcpwzH0m7v14Ybu4dphaPWqwqN1Y9XLQ0RWel aSmYpybLMDDQLImsWjvaQ1syz22rCsP81VMVRpgzacDy4+ui42Jdo2kZnQNl0FJL 0Q= Received: (qmail 97819 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2020 13:46:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 97806 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2020 13:46:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com From: "Lucas A. M. Magalhaes" To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Cc: fweimer@redhat.com Subject: [PATCH] Fix tst-pkey expectations on pkey_get Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:46:04 -0300 Message-Id: <20200207134604.29046-1-lamm@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >From the GNU LibC Manual the pkey_set can receive a combination of PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS. However PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS is more restrictive than PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and includes its behavior. The test expects that after setting (PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE|PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS) pkey_get should return the same. This may not be true as PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS will succeed in describe the state of the key in this case. --- Hi, Florian, Your patch including pkey_set and pkey_get looks good to me. Can you merge it? This one https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00760.html. With this there will be one failure on this test on powerpc machines. The test expects that during a signal handling the pkey_get returns PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS for all keys. In my tests it returns the same permissions as before the signal. I couldn't find where this is done for x86. Is this kernel implementation? sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c index 4ea1bc4f9a..11084520b3 100644 --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-pkey.c @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static pthread_barrier_t barrier; /* The keys used for testing. These have been allocated with access rights set based on their array index. */ -enum { key_count = 4 }; +enum { key_count = 3 }; static int keys[key_count]; static volatile int *pages[key_count]; -- 2.20.1