linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] of: unittest: Add test for of_dma_get_max_cpu

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: <165ca8621058696f7df8e8f894cf647b3171d6fd.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:51:28 +0200
From:   Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] of: unittest: Add test for
 of_dma_get_max_cpu_address()

On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 17:04 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:12 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de> wrote:
> > Introduce a test for of_dma_get_max_cup_address(), it uses the same DT
> > data as the rest of dma-ranges unit tests.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/unittest.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > index 06cc988faf78..2cbf2a585c9f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > @@ -869,6 +869,25 @@ static void __init of_unittest_changeset(void)
> >  #endif
> >  }
> > 
> > +static void __init of_unittest_dma_get_max_cpu_address(void)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DMA
> 
> Can't the unittest run without this? I run the unittests under UML.

It was cargo culted from its sibling of_unittest_dma_ranges_one(), now that you
mention it, I can't seem to find the reason why it's here in the first place,
nor for other similar usages in OF code.

I ran the test in UML with all HAS_DMA conditionals removed from OF code and
things went well. I'll prepare a fix for that.

> > +       struct device_node *np;
> > +       phys_addr_t cpu_addr;
> > +
> > +       np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/address-tests");
> > +       if (!np) {
> > +               pr_err("missing testcase data\n");
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       cpu_addr = of_dma_get_max_cpu_address(np);
> > +       unittest(cpu_addr == 0x50000000ULL,
> > +                "of_dma_get_max_cpu_address: wrong CPU addr %pad (expecting %llx)\n",
> > +                &cpu_addr, 0x50000000ULL);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void __init of_unittest_dma_ranges_one(const char *path,
> >                 u64 expect_dma_addr, u64 expect_paddr)
> >  {
> > @@ -3266,6 +3285,7 @@ static int __init of_unittest(void)
> >         of_unittest_changeset();
> >         of_unittest_parse_interrupts();
> >         of_unittest_parse_interrupts_extended();
> > +       of_unittest_dma_get_max_cpu_address();
> >         of_unittest_parse_dma_ranges();
> >         of_unittest_pci_dma_ranges();
> >         of_unittest_match_node();
> > --
> > 2.28.0
> > 


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)