linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] selftests/mm: va_high_addr_switch return fail when either test failed

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: <aUoCepcpRjuMKoNW@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 10:46:18 +0800
From: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>
To: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org,
	surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] selftests/mm: va_high_addr_switch return fail
 when either test failed

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 02:36:18PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On 2025-12-20 23:00, Chunyu Hu wrote:
> > When the first test failed, and the hugetlb test passed, the result would
> > be pass, but we expect a fail. Fix this issue by returning fail if either
> > is not KSFT_PASS.
> > 
> > CC: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 10 +++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c
> > index 02f290a69132..51401e081b20 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c
> > @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void)
> >   int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >   {
> > -	int ret;
> > +	int ret, hugetlb_ret = KSFT_PASS;
> >   	if (!supported_arch())
> >   		return KSFT_SKIP;
> > @@ -331,6 +331,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >   	ret = run_test(testcases, sz_testcases);
> >   	if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--run-hugetlb"))
> > -		ret = run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);
> 
> Maybe you could just have used:
> 
> 		ret |= run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);

Good point. I thought the result code is not encoded by bit, but for
KSFT_PASS and KSFT_FAIL, and KSFT_SKIP, they are per bit.

   85 #define KSFT_PASS  0
   86 #define KSFT_FAIL  1
   87 #define KSFT_XFAIL 2
   88 #define KSFT_XPASS 3
   89 #define KSFT_SKIP  4

@Andrew, do you think I need to send a v3 for using the simpified way?
if so, send the whole series or the single patch?

> 
> But anyways, as this is just testing code:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
> 
> > -	return ret;
> > +		hugetlb_ret = run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);
> > +
> > +	if (ret == KSFT_PASS && hugetlb_ret == KSFT_PASS)
> > +		return KSFT_PASS;
> > +	else
> > +		return KSFT_FAIL;
> >   }
>