On 2025-08-10 18:27:42 [-0400], Waiman Long wrote:
> The "Memory out of range" subtest of futex_numa_mpol assumes that memory
> access outside of the mmap'ed area is invalid. That may not be the case
> depending on the actual memory layout of the test application. When
> that subtest was run on an x86-64 system with latest upstream kernel,
> the test passed as an error was returned from futex_wake(). On another
> powerpc system, the same subtest failed because futex_wake() returned 0.
>
> Bail out! futex2_wake(64, 0x86) should fail, but didn't
>
> Looking further into the passed subtest on x86-64, it was found that an
> -EINVAL was returned instead of -EFAULT. The -EINVAL error was returned
> because the node value test with FLAGS_NUMA set failed with a node value
> of 0x7f7f. IOW, the futex memory was accessible and futex_wake() failed
> because the supposed node number wasn't valid. If that memory location
> happens to have a very small value (e.g. 0), the test will pass and no
> error will be returned.
>
> Since this subtest is non-deterministic, it is dropped unless we
> explicitly set a guard page beyond the mmap region.
>
> The other problematic test is the "Memory too small" test. The
> futex_wake() function returns the -EINVAL error code because the given
> futex address isn't 8-byte aligned, not because only 4 of the 8 bytes
> are valid and the other 4 bytes are not. So proper name of this subtest
> is changed to "Mis-aligned futex" to reflect the reality.
>
> Fixes: 3163369407ba ("selftests/futex: Add futex_numa_mpol")
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]>
This makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
Sebastian
