linux-kernel - Re: Locking API testsuite problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <482F30A0.4090203@seznam.cz>
Date:	Sat, 17 May 2008 21:23:12 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <monstr@...nam.cz>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC:	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, rth@...ddle.net,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: Locking API testsuite problem - Microblaze

Hi Matthew,

> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:07:36AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> Hi Richard, Tony, Arnd and others,
>>
>> I turn on API testsuite for Microblaze CPU for stable 2.6.24 and I got nice log
>> with some faults. The same problem I have on latest version.
>>
>> I found the similar problem for alpha CPU and ia64 but I haven't found solving
>> these issues. Could you give me a hint how to solve this problem.
> 
> You missed the crucial line:

oou.

> 143 out of 218 testcases failed, as expected.
> 
> Some of these testcases are /expected/ to fail.  Succeeding would be an
> bug.  There are no bugs here.

Thanks for your help. Are these tescases architecture dependent? Because I saw
some logs from other arch and they have everything OK.

Does it mean that everything what I supported works well?

I look to source code and I found these two lines.

DO_TESTCASE_6("double unlock", double_unlock);
DO_TESTCASE_6("initialize held", init_held);

and macro

#define DO_TESTCASE_6(desc, name)                               \
         print_testname(desc);                                   \
         dotest(name##_spin, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_SPIN);            \
         dotest(name##_wlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);         \
         dotest(name##_rlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);         \
         dotest(name##_mutex, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_MUTEX);          \
         dotest(name##_wsem, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);           \
         dotest(name##_rsem, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);           \
         printk("\n");

My results
                             | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
                double unlock:  ok  |  ok  |failed|failed|failed|failed|
              initialize held:failed|failed|failed|failed|failed|failed|

Is this result OK? Because macro say that expected value is failed.

Regards,
Michal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/