On 21.05.21 13:19, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
Verify that s390x-specific uc_mcontext.psw.addr is reported correctly.Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> --- tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target index 241ef28f61..8699d829a5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ TESTS+=exrl-trtr TESTS+=pack TESTS+=mvo TESTS+=mvc +TESTS+=sigill diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..aab560b30f --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +#include <assert.h> +#include <signal.h> +#include <string.h> +#include <ucontext.h> +#include <unistd.h> + +/* + * The labels for the instruction that generates a SIGILL and for the one that + * follows it. They could have been defined in a separate .s file, but this + * would complicate the build, so use the inline asm instead. + */ + +void expected_si_addr(void); +void expected_psw_addr(void); + +asm(".globl\texpected_si_addr\n" + "expected_si_addr:\t.byte\t0x00,0x00\n" + "\t.globl\texpected_psw_addr\n" + "expected_psw_addr:\tbr\t%r14"); + +static void handle_signal(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ucontext) +{ + if (sig != SIGILL) { + _exit(1); + } + + if (info->si_addr != expected_si_addr) { + _exit(2); + } + + if (((ucontext_t *)ucontext)->uc_mcontext.psw.addr != + (unsigned long)expected_psw_addr) { + _exit(3); + } +} + +int main(void) +{ + struct sigaction act; + int ret; + + memset(&act, 0, sizeof(act)); + act.sa_sigaction = handle_signal; + act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO; + + ret = sigaction(SIGILL, &act, NULL); + assert(ret == 0); + + expected_si_addr(); + + return 0; +}
That makes it much clearer, thanks. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
