Adding original author to CC: Rick Edgecombe <[email protected]>.
Maybe he has some insight on why we have this SKIP / return 1 inconsistency. On 3/1/26 02:47, 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. Should we also return KSFT_SKIP in other 3 SKIP paths, which currently return 0? I guess that means that those skips are currently reported as success, right? > > Signed-off-by: Aleksei Oladko <[email protected]> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c > index 21af54d5f4ea..1747ea4cb725 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 > @@ -981,7 +982,7 @@ 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)) { > @@ -991,12 +992,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK)) { > printf("[SKIP]\tCould not re-enable Shadow stack\n"); > - return 1; > + return KSFT_SKIP; > } > > if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS)) { > printf("[SKIP]\tCould not enable WRSS\n"); > - ret = 1; > + ret = KSFT_SKIP; > goto out; > } > -- Best regards, Pavel Tikhomirov Senior Software Developer, Virtuozzo.
