Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> writes:
> On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
>> @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags)
>> pkey, pkey, pkey_rights);
>> pkey_assert(pkey_rights >= 0);
>>
>> - pkey_rights |= flags;
>> + pkey_rights &= ~flags;
>>
>> ret = pkey_set(pkey, pkey_rights, 0);
>> /* pkey_reg and flags have the same format */
>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ void pkey_disable_clear(int pkey, int flags)
>> dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%016lx\n", __func__,
>> pkey, rdpkey_reg());
>> if (flags)
>> - assert(rdpkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
>> + assert(rdpkey_reg() < orig_pkey_reg);
>> }
>>
>> void pkey_write_allow(int pkey)
>
> This seems so horribly wrong that I wonder how it worked in the first
> place. Any idea?
The code simply wasn't used. pkey_disable_clear() is called by
pkey_write_allow() and pkey_access_allow(), but before this patch series
nothing called either of these functions.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
