linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems

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

Message-ID: <CANq1E4SDefxqr0wn70d4Nh3vVQ22kUcZL=Mqv6NpiZUXUVqWkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:53:08 +0200
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems

Hi

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com> wrote:
> This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
> flags to fcntl.
>
> This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making it
> work on 32-bit systems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
> ---
> v2: use 'unsigned int' instead of u32
>
>  tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> index 3634c90..6f1385a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
> @@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
>         }
>  }
>
> -static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
> +static int mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
>  {
> -       long r;
> +       int r;

This function can be declared as returning "unsigned int", but keep
"r" as int. negative return codes cause an abort(), so we're fine.

>
>         r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
>         if (r < 0) {
> @@ -72,36 +72,34 @@ static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
>         return r;
>  }
>
> -static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
> +static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals)
>  {
> -       __u64 s;
> +       int s;
>
>         s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
>         if (s != seals) {
> -               printf("%llu != %llu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
> -                      (unsigned long long)seals, (unsigned long long)s, fd);
> +               printf("%u != %u = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
> +                               seals, (unsigned int)s, fd);

By making mfd_assert_get_seals() return "unsigned int", you can
declare 's' as unsigned, too, and drop this cast.

>                 abort();
>         }
>  }
>
> -static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
> +static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals)
>  {
> -       long r;
> -       __u64 s;
> +       int r, s;
>
>         s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
>         r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
>         if (r < 0) {
> -               printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) failed: %m\n",
> -                      fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
> +               printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %u -> %u) failed: %m\n",
> +                               fd, (unsigned int)s, seals);

same here

>                 abort();
>         }
>  }
>
> -static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
> +static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals)
>  {
> -       long r;
> -       __u64 s;
> +       int r, s;
>
>         r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
>         if (r < 0)
> @@ -111,8 +109,8 @@ static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
>
>         r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
>         if (r >= 0) {
> -               printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) didn't fail as expected\n",
> -                      fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
> +               printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %u -> %u) didn't fail as expected\n",
> +                               fd, (unsigned int)s, seals);

same here

Sorry for the bike-shedding. Patch looks good, otherwise. With, or
without, this changed, this is:

Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>

Thanks
David

>                 abort();
>         }
>  }
> --
> 2.1.0
>
--
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/