[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100215193948.GA28419@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:39:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracehook: add some self tests
On 02/15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> +static int __init syscall_test(void)
> +{
> + struct pt_regs _regs, *regs = &_regs;
> + long _args[8];
> + long *args = _args + 1;
> + long *sys_args[6], *sa;
> + unsigned int i, n, s;
> +
> + /*
> + * First find each system register in pt_regs. We have to assume
> + * syscall_set_arguments() works with very basic arguments.
> + */
> + pr_info("TEST: asm/syscall.h: arg offsets: { ");
> +
> + for (s = 0; s < 6; ++s)
> + args[s] = s;
> + memset(regs, 0xad, sizeof(*regs));
> + syscall_set_arguments(NULL, regs, 0, 6, args);
^^^^
I am not sure ia64 can tolerate task == NULL. Hmm, even x86 checks
task_thread_info(task)->status.
Probably CONFIG_TRACEHOOK_SELF_TEST needs more attention ?
Otherwise, I convinced myself I understand what this code does, and
it looks good ;)
Oleg.
--
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