On 22/04/2025 12:07, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:03:08PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 22/04/2025 11:47, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:37:57AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote: > > [snip] > >>>> >>>> Hi Lorenzo, >>>> >>>> I'm getting a test failure in v6.15-rc3 on arm64: >>>> >>>> ----8<---- >>>> # RUN guard_regions.shmem.uffd ... >>>> # guard-regions.c:1467:uffd:Expected ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_REGISTER, ®) >>>> (-1) == >>>> 0 (0) >>>> # uffd: Test terminated by assertion >>>> # FAIL guard_regions.shmem.uffd >>>> not ok 45 guard_regions.shmem.uffd >>>> ----8<---- >>>> >>>> The ioctl is returning EINVAL. >>> >>> Hm strange, that works fine <resists urge to say 'on my machine'> on >>> x86-64. Is >>> userfaultfd enabled in your config, to ask a silly question? >> >> Yep, and the anon version of the test is passing, as are all the uffd tests. >> >>> >>> It'd be odd for this to vary depending upon arch. >>> >>> So a factor here is a _stupidity_ in the testing - does your system mount >>> /tmp >>> as tmpfs or an actual file system? As the test code unconditionally assumes >>> /tmp >>> is indeed going to get you a shmem file. >> >> Ahh that's probably it. I'm on Ubuntu and it looks like /tmp is just a dir on >> the rootfs (XFS in my case). >> >> Forcing a tmpfs to /tmp solved it. >> >> Looks like uffd-unit-tests (see shmem_allocate_area()) is just using memfd. >> Would it be reasonable to take that approach? Or just use anon+shared via >> mmap? > > Yeah could be either memfd or MAP_ANON | MAP_SHARED. I think I did it this > way to make the code a little easier given all the variant stuff. > > Unless you felt especially keen, I can add fixing this to my todos :)
I'm not keen, but if it lingers I might have a crack. Otherwise it's just more noise to ignore when I'm running tests... > > Sorry about this! Entirely my fault, knew it wasn't ideal when I wrote it, > but with test code sometimes you (perhaps incorrectly) tolerate things you > wouldn't elsewhere... No problem; I would have done the same thing. Given we know the root cause is a test issue, this is not a high priority issue from my perspective. > > Cheers, Lorenzo > >> >> Thanks, >> Ryan >> > > [snip]
