Re: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
> > and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
> > :-)
> 
> Great! thanks a lot Ananth for doing this.
> 
> ptrace-utrace still fails 2 tests,
> 
> > FAIL: syscall-reset
> 
> I'll take a look later. Since unpatched kernel fails this test too
> I am not going to worry right now. I think this is ppc specific, x86
> passes this test.
> 
> > step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
> > /bin/sh: line 5: 24803 Aborted                 ${dir}$tst
> > FAIL: step-fork
> 
> This is expected. Should be fixed by
> 
> 	ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
> 
> in -mm tree. (I am attaching this patch below just in case)
> I din't mention this patch in this series because this bug
> is "ortogonal" to utrace/ptrace.

Oleg,

The patch doesn't seem to fix the issue on powerpc:

step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted                 ${dir}$tst
FAIL: step-fork

Ananth