On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 05:16:26PM +0800, Hongfu Li wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > Thanks for the review comments. > > > Hmm you're sending this separete from the other MAP_FAILED checks, and not > > referencing that in any way? (original patch at [0]). > > > > Please just send this as a 2 patch series _with a cover letter_ and both > > patches > > in-reply-to the cover letter. > > > > Also make sure to propagate tags correctly. > > > > [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > The first patch has already been merged into the mm-new branch: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-new&id=ffe64def0071989cff47b5525d38f5e558c637c3 > > For this reason, I split this one out separately to avoid confusion.
Hmm ok so you sent a v2 that was rejected [1], you were given feedback for a respin but the v1 has been taken + not updated?... That's really not how the process is supposed to work :/ Bit of a mess, Andrew - maybe best to keep the v1 then, and Hongfu - you can respin this as requested? [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 04:21:20PM +0800, Hongfu Li wrote: > > > Several mmap() calls lack error checks and would crash on failure. > > > Add the missing checks. Also replace bare (void *)-1 with the > > > > Well you're assert()'ing so you're causing a crash on failure anyway? > > > > I'd just say that you are adding missing checks against the mmap() return > > value, > > as well as improving readability and consistency by replacing (void *)-1 > > with > > MAP_FAILED in instances where that was used rather than MAP_FAILED. > > Thanks for pointing this out, I will correct it in v2. > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pkey_sighandler_tests.c > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pkey_sighandler_tests.c > > > index 302fef54049c..4637809192f9 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pkey_sighandler_tests.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/pkey_sighandler_tests.c > > > @@ -317,6 +317,7 @@ static void > > > test_sigsegv_handler_with_different_pkey_for_stack(void) > > > /* Set up alternate signal stack that will use the default MPK */ > > > sigstack.ss_sp = mmap(0, STACK_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > > > MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0); > > > + assert(sigstack.ss_sp != MAP_FAILED); > > > > Why not pkey_assert()? > > > > > sigstack.ss_flags = 0; > > > sigstack.ss_size = STACK_SIZE; > > > > > > @@ -490,6 +491,7 @@ static void test_pkru_sigreturn(void) > > > /* Set up alternate signal stack that will use the default MPK */ > > > sigstack.ss_sp = mmap(0, STACK_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > > > MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0); > > > + assert(sigstack.ss_sp != MAP_FAILED); > > > > Why not pkey_assert()? > > protection_keys.c executes numerous tests in loops across multiple iterations, > so the test_nr and iteration_nr printed by pkey_assert help easily locate the > exact failed test case and iteration. > In contrast, pkey_sighandler_tests.c consists of only a few standalone test > functions invoked once each, so plain assert providing file and line > information > should suffice to locate failures. Why would we not want more information here? This argument doesn't hold any water, please use pkey_assert(). (BTW This reads like an AI generated sentence. We're fine with you using AI to assist with English for instance, but please make sure it's your own thoughts!) > > > > @@ -1775,7 +1776,7 @@ int main(void) > > > printf("running PKEY tests for unsupported CPU/OS\n"); > > > > > > ptr = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, > > > -1, 0); > > > - assert(ptr != (void *)-1); > > > + assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED); > > > > Probably best to convert to pkey_assert() at the same time? > > This is a pre-test initialization path that runs before the test > loop, so test_nr and iteration_nr (used in pkey_assert for diagnostic > output) are not yet set up at this point. > Would using plain assert() here be more appropriate? OK that's gross, please just replace it with a test failure kmsg_xxx() whatever it is, and a return EXIT_FAILURE; or something since you're in main(). > > Best regards, > Hongfu Cheers, Lorenzo
