From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-91161-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 98344 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2018 17:57:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 98323 invoked by uid 89); 19 Mar 2018 17:57:53 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-ot0-f175.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=6Yi8335+sFlrOiMPF41vrEuw0aV5MLbj7qf1HVutK/U=;
        b=oXFCDUEz9CxUsB0AkeY0oWYVJl2kH2KoAyjnqhs3TSy7NQJveacAg1H7HXwtsW646S
         xrJxuoC3SbcPDhp+AfYmGDUk00g0CKchct35RMgXbZLjGqejaZ4A5x1zdcw1KOX4y0XQ
         //xvUC42kOR8RMCqnNUhnzFZihTffVA91tbWxG1r1Ln567yM4c01RBxTMs45a2mD7aSd
         q1/VqKfRO1nP5muhcXJRrr7Lje7BxteH6/AM5elAmGKbKJGh01yhj7+mCod8yrBPsoB0
         tvvBK4e95ZNU0jMV1V7YGVbA72caZkDmWKLd0485Xr57/3K7I5TnOHHA2IGG1dTN/f7q
         HTCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EvUCrqTRwreZarTv3iEcEBc/t0ytwtb9S6M58w7nJx8JIrW0K7
	U+OU2kyB8Va+1R2n31LkM+f9lnDfzMIOYzbyN8E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49n/PwaoF+aSF8NEJt6jjI8hyOxke9ukbGqETPJw49GCw9vbJgd9sggyJ3vFPNi7yDgaMsr1wWKPnwFKZ5ZjPU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2c09:: with SMTP id f9-v6mr110178otb.123.1521482270712;
 Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMXFM3s39wwjHt=5PBp=Np8Rp=mXHfPwMq6_evtfx9MV08-mtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMXFM3s5b2a6o_CMS0cJ35oE3SuJUHssqLAUY94LSZhEEtG71A@mail.gmail.com>
 <mvm606ts2w6.fsf@suse.de> <CAMXFM3vqw7eiUT1XYVZWyW=eJkgEpjNc74A8mbmdKuR_hywN3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMe9rOo4Ys=ScEKKnuv5XvYqTHjvFxSkXjch8ya8sX7dfP+q4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMXFM3vA=-LSK5VtKhhbs0g9faBdG0GjoAbNb6OPEbSt8dAA7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <mvmlgeojjmi.fsf@suse.de> <597954a1-85da-e524-1454-27c46af57413@redhat.com>
 <e7d81f18-315c-4434-a734-41029c0d387f@arm.com> <8c8ab285-bddc-90e6-a50e-7be89703367a@redhat.com>
 <CAMXFM3s39wwjHt=5PBp=Np8Rp=mXHfPwMq6_evtfx9MV08-mtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:57:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOoCe+qiOFK8=dwxm+eB=_wSoHbXdid0RKSUHqOtM7Wwfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix i386 memmove issue [BZ #22644]
To: Andrew Senkevich <andrew.n.senkevich@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>, 
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>, nd <nd@arm.com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, 
	Max Horn <max@quendi.de>, thomas@grindinggear.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Senkevich
<andrew.n.senkevich@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-03-19 16:33 GMT+01:00 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>:
>> On 03/19/2018 03:25 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>
>>> i thought not using MAP_FIXED is the 'non-overriding MAP_FIXED variant'
>
> Hmm, I tried so and had got much bigger address. But now I see it
> works (with size just 0x20000000 and 0x70000000 as a hint) in both 64
> and 32 bit cases, so proposing the following:
>
> diff --git a/string/test-memmove.c b/string/test-memmove.c
> index edc7a4c..fa4037d 100644
> --- a/string/test-memmove.c
> +++ b/string/test-memmove.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  # define TEST_NAME "memmove"
>  #endif
>  #include "test-string.h"
> +#include <support/test-driver.h>
>
>  char *simple_memmove (char *, const char *, size_t);
>
> @@ -245,6 +246,59 @@ do_random_tests (void)
>      }
>  }
>
> +static void
> +do_test2 (void)
> +{
> +  size_t size = 0x20000000;
> +  uint32_t * large_buf;
> +
> +  large_buf = mmap ((void*)0x70000000, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> +     MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANON, -1, 0);
> +
> +  if (large_buf == MAP_FAILED)
> +    error (EXIT_UNSUPPORTED, errno, "Large mmap failed");
> +
> +  if ((uintptr_t)large_buf > 0x80000000 - 128)

Don't you need to test if address is too low such that
0x80000000 - (uintptr_t)large_buf > 0x20000000?

> +    {
> +      error (0, 0,"Large mmap doesn't cross 0x80000000 boundary");
> +      ret = EXIT_UNSUPPORTED;
> +      munmap((void *)large_buf, size);
> +      return;
> +    }
> +
> +  uint32_t bytes_move = 0x80000000 - (uintptr_t)large_buf;
> +  uint32_t arr_size = bytes_move / sizeof(uint32_t);
> +  uint32_t i;

Please use size_t instead of uint32_t since 64-bit test is added now.

> +  FOR_EACH_IMPL (impl, 0)
> +    {
> +      for (i = 0; i < arr_size; i++)
> +        large_buf[i] = i;
> +
> +      uint32_t * dst = &large_buf[33];
> +
> +#ifdef TEST_BCOPY
> +      CALL (impl, (char *)large_buf, (char *)dst, bytes_move);
> +#else
> +      CALL (impl, (char *)dst, (char *)large_buf, bytes_move);
> +#endif
> +
> +      for (i = 0; i < arr_size; i++)
> +        {
> +          if (dst[i] != i)
> +     {
> +       error (0, 0,
> +      "Wrong result in function %s dst \"%p\" src \"%p\" offset \"%d\"",
> +      impl->name, dst, large_buf, i);
> +       ret = 1;
> +       break;
> +     }
> + }
> +    }
> +
> +  munmap((void *)large_buf, size);
> +}
> +
>  int
>  test_main (void)
>  {
> @@ -284,6 +338,9 @@ test_main (void)
>      }
>
>    do_random_tests ();
> +
> +  do_test2 ();
> +
>    return ret;
>  }
>
> Ok?
>
>
> --
> WBR,
> Andrew



-- 
H.J.