i#5784: Fix false positives in invariant checker #5788
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixes two false positives in the drcachesim invariant checker code. Skips the pre-signal instr check when returning from signals that arrived before any other instr in the trace, or before any other instr since the last signal kernel xfer. Adds tests that fail without this fix. Fixes: #5784
abhinav92003
commented
Dec 14, 2022
derekbruening
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2022
|
run arm tests |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes two false positives in the drcachesim invariant checker code. Skips the pre-signal instr check when returning from signals that arrived before any other instr in the trace, or before any other instr since the last kernel xfer (nested signals without any intervening instr). In both these cases we don't have any pre-signal instr whose pc we can compare with the post-signal instr.
Note that we still do not handle the back-to-back signals case where the second signal arrives just after the first one returns, without any intervening instruction. Improved the comment for that.
Adds tests that fail without this fix.
Fixes: #5784