From: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
To: Aleksei Oladko <aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Edgecombe@dev004.aci.vzint.dev,
Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] selftests: x86: test_shadow_stack: return KSFT_SKIP when test is skipped
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:15:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75496499-9ceb-449c-8a73-30d9ea1cc452@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260323104536.198738-1-aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com>
On 3/23/26 11:45, Aleksei Oladko wrote:
> test_shadow_stack prints a message indicating that the test is
> skipped in some cases, but still returns 1. This causes the test
> to be reported as failed instead of skipped.
>
> Return KSFT_SKIP in the skip path so the result is reported
> correctly.
>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksei Oladko <aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com>
>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Fixed incorrect return values in test_userfaultfd and test_uretprobe
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20260322233938.190526-1-aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com/T/
>
> Changes in v2:
> - return SKIP only for "Could not enable Shadow stack" case
> - Changed message from SKIP to FAIL for remaining cases
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20260301014733.454260-1-aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com/T/
>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksei Oladko <aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
> index 21af54d5f4ea..d52c8c2f7800 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #include <sys/signal.h>
> #include <linux/elf.h>
> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
> +#include "kselftest.h"
>
> /*
> * Define the ABI defines if needed, so people can run the tests
> @@ -64,7 +65,7 @@
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> printf("[SKIP]\tCompiler does not support CET.\n");
> - return 0;
> + return KSFT_SKIP;
> }
> #else
> void write_shstk(unsigned long *addr, unsigned long val)
> @@ -820,9 +821,11 @@ static int test_uretprobe(void)
>
> type = determine_uprobe_perf_type();
> if (type < 0) {
> - if (type == -ENOENT)
> + if (type == -ENOENT) {
> printf("[SKIP]\tUretprobe test, uprobes are not available\n");
> - return 0;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + return 1;
> }
>
> offset = get_uprobe_offset(uretprobe_trigger);
> @@ -981,21 +984,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>
> if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK)) {
> printf("[SKIP]\tCould not enable Shadow stack\n");
> - return 1;
> + return KSFT_SKIP;
> }
>
> if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK)) {
> - ret = 1;
> printf("[FAIL]\tDisabling shadow stack failed\n");
> + return 1;
> }
>
> if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK)) {
> - printf("[SKIP]\tCould not re-enable Shadow stack\n");
> + printf("[FAIL]\tCould not re-enable Shadow stack\n");
> return 1;
> }
>
> if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS)) {
> - printf("[SKIP]\tCould not enable WRSS\n");
> + printf("[FAIL]\tCould not enable WRSS\n");
> ret = 1;
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -1057,6 +1060,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> if (test_ptrace()) {
> ret = 1;
> printf("[FAIL]\tptrace test\n");
> + goto out;
> }
>
> if (test_32bit()) {
--
Best regards, Pavel Tikhomirov
Senior Software Developer, Virtuozzo.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-23 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-23 10:45 Aleksei Oladko
2026-03-23 11:15 ` Pavel Tikhomirov [this message]
2026-03-25 20:57 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=75496499-9ceb-449c-8a73-30d9ea1cc452@virtuozzo.com \
--to=ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=Edgecombe@dev004.aci.vzint.dev \
--cc=aleksey.oladko@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®