lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv9 2/2] selftest/x86: add mremap vdso test
2016-05-21 23:27 GMT+03:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Should print on success:
>> >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32
>> >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf773f000
>> >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f773f000, f7740000] -> [a000000, a001000]
>> >> [OK]
>> >> Or segfault if landing was bad (before patches):
>> >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32
>> >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf774f000
>> >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f774f000, f7750000] -> [a000000, a001000]
>> >> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>> >
>> > So I still think that generating potential segfaults is not a proper way to test a
>> > new feature. How are we supposed to tell the feature still works? I realize that
>> > glibc is a problem here - but that doesn't really change the QA equation: we are
>> > adding new kernel code to help essentially a single application out of tens of
>> > thousands of applications.
>> >
>> > At minimum we should have a robust testcase ...
>>
>> I think it's robust enough. It will print "[OK]" and exit with 0 on
>> success and it will crash on failure. The latter should cause make
>> run_tests to fail reliably.
>
> Indeed, you are right - I somehow mis-read it as potentially segfaulting on fixed
> kernels as well...
>
> Will look at applying this after the merge window.

Great! Thanks, Ingo - maybe I should have wrote test's patch description better.
Thanks again, Andy.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-22 08:01    [W:0.090 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site