Re: [PATCH] selftests/futex: Fix some futex_numa_mpol subtests

[Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>]

On 8/19/25 8:22 AM, André Almeida wrote:
> Hi Waiman,
>
> Em 10/08/2025 19:27, Waiman Long escreveu:
>> The "Memory out of range" subtest of futex_numa_mpol assumes that memory
>> access outside of the mmap'ed area is invalid. That may not be the case
>> depending on the actual memory layout of the test application. When
>> that subtest was run on an x86-64 system with latest upstream kernel,
>> the test passed as an error was returned from futex_wake(). On another
>> powerpc system, the same subtest failed because futex_wake() returned 0.
>>
>>    Bail out! futex2_wake(64, 0x86) should fail, but didn't
>>
>> Looking further into the passed subtest on x86-64, it was found that an
>> -EINVAL was returned instead of -EFAULT. The -EINVAL error was returned
>> because the node value test with FLAGS_NUMA set failed with a node value
>> of 0x7f7f. IOW, the futex memory was accessible and futex_wake() failed
>> because the supposed node number wasn't valid. If that memory location
>> happens to have a very small value (e.g. 0), the test will pass and no
>> error will be returned.
>>
>> Since this subtest is non-deterministic, it is dropped unless we
>> explicitly set a guard page beyond the mmap region.
>>
>>
> I had proposed a refactor of the futex selftests[1] and I spotted the 
> same issue with the memory out of range test. My solution for this was 
> to create a "buffer zone" with PROT_NONE to ensure that I would have a 
> invalid memory access:
>
> /*
>  * test_harness_run() calls mmap(..., MAP_SHARED, ...), which can create
>  * a valid access memory region just bellow the mmap() issue here. Then,
>  * the test for "Memory out of range" will fail because it will succeed
>  * accessing the memory address after the range. To avoid this we create
>  * a "Buffer zone" with PROT_NONE between the two mmap's.
>  */
> buffer_zone = mmap(NULL, mem_size, PROT_NONE, MAP_PRIVATE | 
> MAP_ANONYMOUS, 0, 0);
>
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250704-tonyk-robust_test_cleanup-v1-13-c0ff4f24c4e1@igalia.com/
>
That should work too.

I am fine with either my patch or your getting merged as it should 
address the test failure that I had encountered.

Cheers,
Longman