[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200107193054.t2d4txgz3fnrw3gn@wittgenstein>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:30:54 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Amanieu d'Antras <amanieu@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: Implement copy_thread_tls
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:12:39AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 05:45:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:02:27AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > [Cc Kees in case he knows something about where arch specific tests live
> > > or whether we have a framework for this]
> > > [...]
> > > It feels like we must've run into the "this is architecture
> > > specific"-and-we-want-to-test-this issue before... Do we have a place
> > > where architecture specific selftests live?
> >
> > For arch-specific selftests there are tools/testing/selftests/$ARCH
> > directories, although in this case maybe it's better to have an #ifdef
> > in a header so that architectures with __builtin_thread_pointer can use
> > that.
>
> Yup, I agree: that's the current best-practice for arch-specific
> selftests.
Thanks! I think using #ifdef in this case with __builtin_thread_pointer
sounds good.
So the tests can be moved into the clone3() test-suite for those
architectures.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists