[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126075335.GA18508@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:23:35 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
> > and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
> > :-)
>
> Great! thanks a lot Ananth for doing this.
>
> ptrace-utrace still fails 2 tests,
>
> > FAIL: syscall-reset
>
> I'll take a look later. Since unpatched kernel fails this test too
> I am not going to worry right now. I think this is ppc specific, x86
> passes this test.
>
> > step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
> > /bin/sh: line 5: 24803 Aborted ${dir}$tst
> > FAIL: step-fork
>
> This is expected. Should be fixed by
>
> ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
>
> in -mm tree. (I am attaching this patch below just in case)
> I din't mention this patch in this series because this bug
> is "ortogonal" to utrace/ptrace.
Oleg,
The patch doesn't seem to fix the issue on powerpc:
step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted ${dir}$tst
FAIL: step-fork
Ananth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists