Hi Mark,
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:07AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>
> > +static int check_anonymous_memory_mapping(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping, int tag_check, int atag_check)
> > {
> > char *ptr, *map_ptr;
> > int run, result, map_size;
> > @@ -97,16 +106,16 @@ static int check_anonymous_memory_mapping(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping, i
> > munmap((void *)map_ptr, map_size);
> > return KSFT_FAIL;
> > }
> > - result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, tag_check);
> > + result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, tag_check, atag_check);
> > mte_clear_tags((void *)ptr, sizes[run]);
> > mte_free_memory((void *)map_ptr, map_size, mem_type, false);
> > - if (result == KSFT_FAIL)
> > - return KSFT_FAIL;
> > + if (result != KSFT_SKIP)
> > + return result;
> > }
>
> This changes the logic to exit the loop immediately if the check passes
> which doesn't seem like what we want, should we instead change the test
> to be:
>
> if (result != KSFT_PASS)
>
> which I think is more the intent?
Well, at the time of write, when the check_mte_memory return the "SKIP"
intent is to iterating the next item. But, yes this is meandingless.
I'll change with your suggestion.
>
> > + result = check_mte_memory(ptr, sizes[run], mode, TAG_CHECK_ON, atag_check);
> > mte_free_memory_tag_range((void *)ptr, sizes[run], mem_type, UNDERFLOW, OVERFLOW);
> > if (result != KSFT_PASS)
> > return KSFT_FAIL;
> > @@ -192,7 +201,7 @@ static int check_clear_prot_mte_flag(int mem_type, int mode, int mapping)
> > close(fd);
> > return KSFT_FAIL;
> > }
>
> Won't this upgrade any skips to fails?
Right. I'll change this.
Thanks!
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
