On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 09:21:50AM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:15:17AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:49:31PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > When compiling the pointer masking tests with -Wall this warning
> > > is present:
> > >
> > > pointer_masking.c: In function ‘test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl’:
> > > pointer_masking.c:203:9: warning: ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’
> > > declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result]
> > > 203 | pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0); |
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pointer_masking.c:208:9: warning:
> > > ignoring return value of ‘pwrite’ declared with attribute
> > > ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result]
> > > 208 | pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > >
> > > I came across this on riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> > > 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04).
> > >
> > > Fix this by checking that the number of bytes written equal the expected
> > > number of bytes written.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 7470b5afd150 ("riscv: selftests: Add a pointer masking test")
> > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <char...@rivosinc.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - Skip sysctl_enabled test if first pwrite failed
> > > - Link to v3:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241205-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v3-1-5c28b0f96...@rivosinc.com
> > >
> > > Changes in v3:
> > > - Fix sysctl enabled test case (Drew/Alex)
> > > - Move pwrite err condition into goto (Drew)
> > > - Link to v2:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v2-1-1bf0c5095...@rivosinc.com
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - I had ret != 2 for testing, I changed it to be ret != 1.
> > > - Link to v1:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-v1-1-ea1e9665c...@rivosinc.com
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c | 20
> > > ++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > index dee41b7ee3e3..759445d5f265 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/abi/pointer_masking.c
> > > @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void)
> > > {
> > > char value;
> > > int fd;
> > > + int ret;
> > > + char *err_pwrite_msg = "failed to write to
> > > /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr_disabled\n";
> > >
> > > ksft_print_msg("Testing tagged address ABI sysctl\n");
> > >
> > > @@ -200,18 +202,32 @@ static void test_tagged_addr_abi_sysctl(void)
> > > }
> > >
> > > value = '1';
> > > - pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > + ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > + if (ret != 1) {
> > > + ksft_test_result_skip(err_pwrite_msg);
> >
> > It seems like we should have a better way to keep the count balanced than
> > to require a ksft_test_result_skip() call for each test on each error
> > path. Every time we add a test we'll have to go add skips everywhere else.
>
> It's only a problem if there are multiple tests in a single test
> function like there is here. Since the tests disable then reenable it
> makes sense to have them in one function, but does require us to do the
> skipping.
I guess it is sufficient to leave out the skip here, if the first one
fails we can just continue and let the second one fail too.
- Charlie
>
> >
> > > + goto err_pwrite;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == -EINVAL,
> > > "sysctl disabled\n");
> > >
> > > value = '0';
> > > - pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > + ret = pwrite(fd, &value, 1, 0);
> > > + if (ret != 1)
> > > + goto err_pwrite;
> > > +
> > > ksft_test_result(set_tagged_addr_ctrl(min_pmlen, true) == 0,
> > > "sysctl enabled\n");
> > >
> > > set_tagged_addr_ctrl(0, false);
> > >
> > > close(fd);
> > > +
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > +err_pwrite:
> > > + close(fd);
> > > + ksft_test_result_fail(err_pwrite_msg);
> > > }
> >
> > I don't think the goto reduces much code or improves readability much. A
> > wrapper function should do better. I was thinking something like
> >
> > static bool pwrite_wrapper(int fd, void *buf, size_t count, const char
> > *msg)
> > {
> > int ret = pwrite(fd, buf, count, 0);
> > if (ret != count) {
> > ksft_perror(msg);
> > return false;
> > }
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> >
> > value = '1';
> > if (!pwrite_wrapper(fd, &value, 1, "write '1'"))
> > ksft_test_result_fail(...);
> >
> > value = '0';
> > if (!pwrite_wrapper(fd, &value, 1, "write '0'"))
> > ksft_test_result_fail(...);
> >
> >
>
> Will do, thanks!
>
> - Charlie
>
> > >
> > > static void test_tagged_addr_abi_pmlen(int pmlen)
> > >
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 40384c840ea1944d7c5a392e8975ed088ecf0b37
> > > change-id: 20241204-fix_warnings_pointer_masking_tests-3860e4f35429
> > > --
> > > - Charlie
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > drew
