On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:13:30PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
Added a simple mangle testcase which messes with the ucontext_t from within the sig_handler, trying to toggle PSTATE SSBS bit. Expect SIGILL if SSBS feature unsupported or that the value set in PSTATE.SSBS is preserved on test PASS.
Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi cristian.marussi@arm.com
.../arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore | 1 + .../testcases/mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore index e7a1d998b650..c2972c3f33ca 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/.gitignore @@ -5,3 +5,4 @@ mangle_pstate_invalid_state_toggle mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el1 mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el2 mangle_pstate_invalid_mode_el3 +mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..d997ebf742d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/mangle_pstate_ssbs_regs.c @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ +/* Copyright (C) 2019 ARM Limited */
+#include "test_signals_utils.h" +#include "testcases.h"
+static int mangle_invalid_pstate_ssbs_run(struct tdescr *td,
siginfo_t *si, ucontext_t *uc)+{
- ASSERT_GOOD_CONTEXT(uc);
- /* toggle bit value */
- uc->uc_mcontext.pstate ^= PSR_SSBS_BIT;
- /* Save after mangling...it should be preserved */
- td->saved_uc = *uc;
- return 1;
+}
+static int pstate_ssbs_bit_checks(struct tdescr *td) +{
- uint64_t val = 0;
- get_regval(MRS_SSBS_SYSREG, val);
- /* pass when preserved */
- td->pass = (!!(val & MRS_SSBS_BIT) ==
!!(td->saved_uc.uc_mcontext.pstate & PSR_SSBS_BIT));
Nit: there's a redundant level of ! here, and the outer () are unnecessary:
(!!a == !!b) -> !a == !b
[...]
Can we trigger a second signal after the first returns, to grab the updated ucontext and check SSBS in there directly?
Checking that the updated value is _also_ visible via MRS remains useful though, so we should keep that.
Cheers ---Dave