[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190702173716.181223-2-nums@google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:37:16 -0700
From: Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com, mbd@...com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
eranian@...gle.com, Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Fix perf-hooks test
The perf-hooks test fails with Address Sanitizer and Memory
Sanitizer builds because it purposefully generates a segfault.
Checking if these sanitizers are active when running this test
will allow the perf-hooks test to pass.
Signed-off-by: Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
---
tools/perf/tests/perf-hooks.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/perf-hooks.c b/tools/perf/tests/perf-hooks.c
index a693bcf017ea..524ecba63615 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/perf-hooks.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/perf-hooks.c
@@ -25,7 +25,12 @@ static void the_hook(void *_hook_flags)
*hook_flags = 1234;
/* Generate a segfault, test perf_hooks__recover */
+#if defined(ADDRESS_SANITIZER) || defined(MEMORY_SANITIZER) || \
+defined(THREAD_SANITIZER) || defined(SAFESTACK_SANITIZER)
+ raise(SIGSEGV);
+#else
*p = 0;
+#endif
}
int test__perf_hooks(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_unused)
--
2.22.0.410.gd8fdbe21b5-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists