[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_reset_stats: Fix retrieval of hangcheck stats expectation

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 08/12/17 09:07, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/12/17 08:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2017-12-08 16:27:17)
>>> The test expected IOCTL 'I915_GET_RESET_STATS' would return an error
>>> when not root. That is no longer true in the driver and therefore
>>> the test was incorrectly failing.
>>>
>>> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tests/gem_reset_stats.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>>> index edc40767..83c91f0f 100644
>>> --- a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>>> +++ b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>>> @@ -605,10 +605,7 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct 
>>> intel_execution_engine *e,
>>>                  c2 = get_reset_count(fd, ctx);
>>> -               if (ctx == 0)
>>> -                       igt_assert(c2 == -EPERM);
>>> -               else
>>> -                       igt_assert(c2 == 0);
>>> +               igt_assert(c2 == 0);
>>>          }
>>>          igt_waitchildren();
>>> @@ -619,6 +616,11 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct 
>>> intel_execution_engine *e,
>>>          close(fd);
>>>   }
>>> +static int __get_reset_stats(int fd, struct 
>>> local_drm_i915_reset_stats *rs)
>>> +{
>>> +       return drmIoctl(fd, GET_RESET_STATS_IOCTL, &rs);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static int _test_params(int fd, int ctx, uint32_t flags, uint32_t pad)
>>>   {
>>>          struct local_drm_i915_reset_stats rs;
>>> @@ -644,10 +646,16 @@ static void _check_param_ctx(const int fd, 
>>> const int ctx, const cap_t cap)
>>>          const uint32_t bad = rand() + 1;
>>>          if (ctx == 0) {
>>> -               if (cap == root)
>>>                          igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), 0);
>>
>> Spurious indenting leftover.
>>
>>> -               else
>>> -                       igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), 
>>> -EPERM);
>>> +               if (cap != root) {
>>
>> So what are you expecting to happen if you do happen to be rot? Is this
>> test redundant, which is why you skipped it?
> 
> Yes, I think it is redundant because the only expectation for root is 
> for the IOCTL to be successful as it is for non root users (that is why 
> I left the first assert to be run unconditionally), and, even if root is 
> supposed to get the correct reset_count value, unless I am missing 

After looking at this again I disagree with myself :). I (now) think 
that if the interface doesn't allow a non privileged user to access some 
information it should return an error (EPERM) instead of returning a 
returning a fixed value after what looks like a a successful IOCTL, it 
might be incorrectly interpreted as the real thing while it should have 
been discarded. What do you think?

BTW, why are non-root users not allowed to read reset_stats?

> something, that test is not in the scope of this subtest.
> 
> -Antonio
> 
>> -Chris
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx