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 <broo...@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
