netdev - Re: [PATCH 17/53] perf test: Improve bp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56947D55.1080804@huawei.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:13:09 +0800
From:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <pi3orama@....com>,
	<lizefan@...wei.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/53] perf test: Improve bp_signal



On 2016/1/12 5:37, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:
>> Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves
>> test__bp_signal so we can test:
>>
>>   1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction
>>   2. Nested signals
>>
>> Test result:
>>
>>   On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64):
>>
>>   # ./perf test -v signal
>>   17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler                  :
>>   --- start ---
>>   test child forked, pid 10213
>>   count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3
>>   test child finished with 0
>>   ---- end ----
>>   Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok
>>
>> So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly.
>>
>> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com
>> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better,
> Tested-by for the AARCH64 base?

Patch [2] is still in question. On AArch64 this test will fail even
without this patch.

Thank you.