[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2503141411010.4442@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:14:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Filipe Xavier <felipeaggger@...il.com>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, felipe_life@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH PATCH 2/2] selftests: livepatch: test if ftrace can trace
a livepatched function
Hi,
> +start_test "trace livepatched function and check that the live patch remains in effect"
> +
> +FUNCTION_NAME="livepatch_cmdline_proc_show"
> +
> +load_lp $MOD_LIVEPATCH
> +trace_function "$FUNCTION_NAME"
trace_funtion() calls cleanup_ftrace() to prepare the test. Ok.
> +if [[ "$(cat /proc/cmdline)" == "$MOD_LIVEPATCH: this has been live patched" ]] ; then
> + log "livepatch: ok"
> +fi
> +
> +check_traced_function "$FUNCTION_NAME"
> +
> +cleanup_tracing
Here, I suppose, cleanup_tracing() is called to clean up after the check
above so that nothing stays and more tests can be added later. Right?
Would it make sense then to call cleanup_tracing() in
check_traced_function()? I think it would less error prone.
If needed, check_traced_function() can always be upgraded so that it
checks for more traced functions.
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists