[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <516A893A-3436-4693-8960-FCE70C3C0B5E@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:26:22 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/syscall: update and extend selftest syscall_numbering_64
Sure. I am also working on implementing Andy's request of adding a ptracer; it will probably take me a few days to clear off the time to do so.
On May 16, 2021 12:52:06 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@...or.com>
>>
>> Update the syscall_numbering_64 selftest to reflect that a system
>call
>> is to be extended from 32 bits. Add a mix of tests for valid and
>> invalid system calls in 64-bit and x32 space.
>>
>> Use an explicit system call instruction, because we cannot know if
>the
>> glibc syscall() wrapper intercepts instructions, extends the system
>> call number independently, or anything similar.
>>
>> Use long long instead of long to make it possible to compile this
>test
>> on x32 as well as 64 bits.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
>> ---
>> .../testing/selftests/x86/syscall_numbering.c | 274
>++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 222 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
>Small request: I'd suggest moving this to the first place - so that we
>can
>easily test before/after effects of (current) patch #1/4.
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists