The abi_test currently uses a long sized test value for enablement
checks. On LE this works fine, however, on BE this results in inaccurate
assert checks due to a bit being used and assuming it's value is the
same on both LE and BE.
Use int type for 32-bit values and long type for 64-bit values to ensure
appropriate behavior on both LE and BE.
Fixes: 60b1af8de8c1 ("tracing/user_events: Add ABI self-test")
Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c | 16 +++++++++-------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
index 5125c42efe65..67af4c491c0c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static int change_event(bool enable)
return ret;
}
-static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
+static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
{
struct user_reg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
return ret;
}
-static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
+static int reg_disable(void *enable, int bit)
{
struct user_unreg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
@@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
}
FIXTURE(user) {
- long check;
+ int check;
+ long check_long;
};
FIXTURE_SETUP(user) {
change_event(false);
self->check = 0;
+ self->check_long = 0;
}
FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(user) {
@@ -131,9 +133,9 @@ TEST_F(user, bit_sizes) {
#if BITS_PER_LONG == 8
/* Allow 0-64 bits for 64-bit */
- ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 63));
- ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 64));
- ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check, 63));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 63));
+ ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 64));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check_long, 63));
#endif
/* Disallowed sizes (everything beside 4 and 8) */
@@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ static int clone_check(void *check)
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
usleep(100000);
- if (*(long *)check)
+ if (*(int *)check)
return 0;
}
--
2.34.1
Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
-- Steve
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:08:29 +0000
Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> The abi_test currently uses a long sized test value for enablement
> checks. On LE this works fine, however, on BE this results in inaccurate
> assert checks due to a bit being used and assuming it's value is the
> same on both LE and BE.
>
> Use int type for 32-bit values and long type for 64-bit values to ensure
> appropriate behavior on both LE and BE.
>
> Fixes: 60b1af8de8c1 ("tracing/user_events: Add ABI self-test")
> Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> index 5125c42efe65..67af4c491c0c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static int change_event(bool enable)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
> +static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
> {
> struct user_reg reg = {0};
> int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
> +static int reg_disable(void *enable, int bit)
> {
> struct user_unreg reg = {0};
> int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
> @@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
> }
>
> FIXTURE(user) {
> - long check;
> + int check;
> + long check_long;
> };
>
> FIXTURE_SETUP(user) {
> change_event(false);
> self->check = 0;
> + self->check_long = 0;
> }
>
> FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(user) {
> @@ -131,9 +133,9 @@ TEST_F(user, bit_sizes) {
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG == 8
> /* Allow 0-64 bits for 64-bit */
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 63));
> - ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check, sizeof(long), 64));
> - ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check, 63));
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 63));
> + ASSERT_NE(0, reg_enable(&self->check_long, sizeof(long), 64));
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, reg_disable(&self->check_long, 63));
> #endif
>
> /* Disallowed sizes (everything beside 4 and 8) */
> @@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ static int clone_check(void *check)
> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
> usleep(100000);
>
> - if (*(long *)check)
> + if (*(int *)check)
> return 0;
> }
>
On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first > patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree. > > -- Steve > > Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into linux-kselftest next Steve! Does that work for you? thanks, -- Shuah
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600 Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first > > patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree. > > > > -- Steve > > > > > > Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into > linux-kselftest next > > Steve! Does that work for you? > I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go separately through your tree. -- Steve
On 10/4/23 09:14, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600 > Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> >>> Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first >>> patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree. >>> >>> -- Steve >>> >>> >> >> Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into >> linux-kselftest next >> >> Steve! Does that work for you? >> > > I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go > separately through your tree. > Yes I will apply this to linux-kselftest fixes branch once my PR clears. thanks, -- Shuah
On 10/4/23 10:38, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 10/4/23 09:14, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:10:52 -0600 >> Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On 10/3/23 18:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>> >>>> Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first >>>> patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree. >>>> >>>> -- Steve >>>> >>> >>> Yes. I sent a fix up for rc4 - I can pull these two patches into >>> linux-kselftest next >>> >>> Steve! Does that work for you? >>> >> >> I applied the first patch to my tree, I think the second patch is fine to go >> separately through your tree. >> > > > Yes I will apply this to linux-kselftest fixes branch once my PR > clears. > Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for this patch. thanks, -- Shuah
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:48:14 -0600 Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to > linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes > since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events > > Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for > this patch. Hmm, so this didn't apply to my tree nor yours. Beau, can you verify which tree this goes to? -- Steve
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 11:08:15AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:48:14 -0600 > Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Hmm. Which tree is this patch based on? This doesn't apply to > > linux-kselftest fixes - I thought this was based on top of fixes > > since I sent in a fix for Linux 6.6-rc4 for user_events > > > > Beau, Please rebase to the correct tree/branch and send v2 for > > this patch. > > Hmm, so this didn't apply to my tree nor yours. > > Beau, can you verify which tree this goes to? > > -- Steve It was based on tracing/for-next. I'll get a v2 out rebased upon linux-kselftest, does that work? Thanks, -Beau
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 09:52:30 -0700
Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> It was based on tracing/for-next.
>
> I'll get a v2 out rebased upon linux-kselftest, does that work?
Hmm, then it should have applied to my tree. I didn't look too deep.
Can you see if it applies to:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git
trace/for-next ?
Thanks,
-- Steve
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.