From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, mikey@neuling.org
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
npiggin@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Rewrite ptrace-hwbreak.c selftest
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:40:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe91706b-23ad-829b-e631-d518bc2662d4@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb9ea415-e328-6dd0-acec-70f298bb2912@c-s.fr>
On 8/28/19 11:44 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 10/07/2019 à 06:54, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> ptrace-hwbreak.c selftest is logically broken. On powerpc, when
>> watchpoint is created with ptrace, signals are generated before
>> executing the instruction and user has to manually singlestep
>> the instruction with watchpoint disabled, which selftest never
>> does and thus it keeps on getting the signal at the same
>> instruction. If we fix it, selftest fails because the logical
>> connection between tracer(parent) and tracee(child) is also
>> broken. Rewrite the selftest and add new tests for unaligned
>> access.
>
> On the 8xx, signals are generated after executing the instruction.
>
> Can we make the test work in both case ?
Sure. I don't mind. I guess, it should be trivial to do that.
But I'm still waiting for Mikey / Mpe's replay on actual patches.
Mikey, mpe, is it ok to not ignore actual events but generate false
positive events? Is there any other better approach?
Ravi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-04 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-10 4:54 [PATCH v3 0/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Few important fixes Ravi Bangoria
2019-07-10 4:54 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Fix length calculation for unaligned target Ravi Bangoria
2019-07-10 4:54 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Don't ignore extraneous exceptions Ravi Bangoria
2019-07-10 6:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-07-10 6:38 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-09-04 14:42 ` Naveen N. Rao
2019-09-05 3:56 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-07-10 4:54 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Rewrite ptrace-hwbreak.c selftest Ravi Bangoria
2019-08-28 6:14 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-09-04 9:10 ` Ravi Bangoria [this message]
2019-08-06 3:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Few important fixes Ravi Bangoria
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fe91706b-23ad-829b-e631-d518bc2662d4@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®