Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1240892 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-06 21:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-10-15 16:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-15 20:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-10-16 01:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-16 01:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-10-16 04:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-10-16 01:10 +0200

#1240892 — [PATCH v3] selftests/seccomp: build and pass on arm64

Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
the test.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
v3:
 - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
v2:
 - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 770f47adf295..e7bc5d3533da 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -19,15 +19,16 @@
 #include <linux/prctl.h>
 #include <linux/ptrace.h>
 #include <linux/seccomp.h>
-#include <poll.h>
 #include <pthread.h>
 #include <semaphore.h>
 #include <signal.h>
 #include <stddef.h>
 #include <stdbool.h>
 #include <string.h>
+#include <time.h>
 #include <linux/elf.h>
 #include <sys/uio.h>
+#include <sys/utsname.h>
 
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 #include <unistd.h>
@@ -1247,8 +1248,8 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
 	ret = ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, tracee, NT_PRSTATUS, &iov);
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
 
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__aarch64__) || \
-    defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__powerpc__) || \
+    defined(__s390__)
 	{
 		regs.SYSCALL_NUM = syscall;
 	}
@@ -1262,6 +1263,18 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
 		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
 	}
 
+#elif defined(__aarch64__)
+# ifndef NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL
+#  define NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL 0x404
+# endif
+	{
+		iov.iov_base = &syscall;
+		iov.iov_len = sizeof(syscall);
+		ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, tracee, NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL,
+			     &iov);
+		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
+	}
+
 #else
 	ASSERT_EQ(1, 0) {
 		TH_LOG("How is the syscall changed on this architecture?");
@@ -1272,6 +1285,8 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
 	if (syscall == -1)
 		regs.SYSCALL_RET = 1;
 
+	iov.iov_base = &regs;
+	iov.iov_len = sizeof(regs);
 	ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, tracee, NT_PRSTATUS, &iov);
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
 }
@@ -2005,20 +2020,25 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_read, 5, 0),
 		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_exit, 4, 0),
 		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_rt_sigreturn, 3, 0),
-		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_poll, 4, 0),
+		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_nanosleep, 4, 0),
 		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_restart_syscall, 4, 0),
 
 		/* Allow __NR_write for easy logging. */
 		BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, __NR_write, 0, 1),
 		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
 		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
-		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE|0x100), /* poll */
-		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE|0x200), /* restart */
+		/* The nanosleep jump target. */
+		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE|0x100),
+		/* The restart_syscall jump target. */
+		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE|0x200),
 	};
 	struct sock_fprog prog = {
 		.len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(filter),
 		.filter = filter,
 	};
+#if defined(__arm__)
+	struct utsname utsbuf;
+#endif
 
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, pipe(pipefd));
 
@@ -2027,10 +2047,7 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 	if (child_pid == 0) {
 		/* Child uses EXPECT not ASSERT to deliver status correctly. */
 		char buf = ' ';
-		struct pollfd fds = {
-			.fd = pipefd[0],
-			.events = POLLIN,
-		};
+		struct timespec timeout = { };
 
 		/* Attach parent as tracer and stop. */
 		EXPECT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME));
@@ -2054,10 +2071,11 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 			TH_LOG("Failed to get sync data from read()");
 		}
 
-		/* Start poll to be interrupted. */
+		/* Start nanosleep to be interrupted. */
+		timeout.tv_sec = 1;
 		errno = 0;
-		EXPECT_EQ(1, poll(&fds, 1, -1)) {
-			TH_LOG("Call to poll() failed (errno %d)", errno);
+		EXPECT_EQ(0, nanosleep(&timeout, NULL)) {
+			TH_LOG("Call to nanosleep() failed (errno %d)", errno);
 		}
 
 		/* Read final sync from parent. */
@@ -2082,14 +2100,14 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, child_pid, NULL, 0));
 	ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], ".", 1));
 
-	/* Wait for poll() to start. */
+	/* Wait for nanosleep() to start. */
 	ASSERT_EQ(child_pid, waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0));
 	ASSERT_EQ(true, WIFSTOPPED(status));
 	ASSERT_EQ(SIGTRAP, WSTOPSIG(status));
 	ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16));
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg));
 	ASSERT_EQ(0x100, msg);
-	EXPECT_EQ(__NR_poll, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid));
+	EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid));
 
 	/* Might as well check siginfo for sanity while we're here. */
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info));
@@ -2100,7 +2118,7 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 	/* Verify signal delivery came from child (seccomp-triggered). */
 	EXPECT_EQ(child_pid, info.si_pid);
 
-	/* Interrupt poll with SIGSTOP (which we'll need to handle). */
+	/* Interrupt nanosleep with SIGSTOP (which we'll need to handle). */
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, kill(child_pid, SIGSTOP));
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, child_pid, NULL, 0));
 	ASSERT_EQ(child_pid, waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0));
@@ -2110,7 +2128,7 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, child_pid, NULL, &info));
 	EXPECT_EQ(getpid(), info.si_pid);
 
-	/* Restart poll with SIGCONT, which triggers restart_syscall. */
+	/* Restart nanosleep with SIGCONT, which triggers restart_syscall. */
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, kill(child_pid, SIGCONT));
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, child_pid, NULL, 0));
 	ASSERT_EQ(child_pid, waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0));
@@ -2124,16 +2142,25 @@ TEST(syscall_restart)
 	ASSERT_EQ(SIGTRAP, WSTOPSIG(status));
 	ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, (status >> 16));
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG, child_pid, NULL, &msg));
+
 	ASSERT_EQ(0x200, msg);
 	ret = get_syscall(_metadata, child_pid);
 #if defined(__arm__)
-	/* FIXME: ARM does not expose true syscall in registers. */
-	EXPECT_EQ(__NR_poll, ret);
-#else
-	EXPECT_EQ(__NR_restart_syscall, ret);
+	/*
+	 * FIXME:
+	 * - native ARM registers do NOT expose true syscall.
+	 * - compat ARM registers on ARM64 DO expose true syscall.
+	 */
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, uname(&utsbuf));
+	if (strncmp(utsbuf.machine, "arm", 3) == 0) {
+		EXPECT_EQ(__NR_nanosleep, ret);
+	} else
 #endif
+	{
+		EXPECT_EQ(__NR_restart_syscall, ret);
+	}
 
-	/* Write again to end poll. */
+	/* Write again to end test. */
 	ASSERT_EQ(0, ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, child_pid, NULL, 0));
 	ASSERT_EQ(1, write(pipefd[1], "!", 1));
 	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(pipefd[1]));
-- 
1.9.1


-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247828

On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
> the test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> v3:
>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
> v2:
>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
> ---

Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1

thanks,
-- Shuah

-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248075

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>> the test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> ---
>> v3:
>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>> v2:
>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>> ---
>
> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1

Yes please. :)

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248129

On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>> the test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> v3:
>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>> v2:
>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>> ---
>>
>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
> 
> Yes please. :)
> 

ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248213

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>>> the test.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> v3:
>>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>>> v2:
>>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
>>
>> Yes please. :)
>>
>
> ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.

Am I looking at the right tree? linux-kselftest#next doesn't appear to
have the s390 patch that was included in 4.3.

-Kees

>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248240

On 10/15/2015 05:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 04:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>>>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>>>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>>>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>>>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>>>>> the test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>>>>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
>>>>
>>>> Yes please. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.
>>
>> Am I looking at the right tree? linux-kselftest#next doesn't appear to
>> have the s390 patch that was included in 4.3.
>>
> 
> I see what happened. Your patch is linux-next fixes and that went into
> 4.3-rc2. I can get linux-next rebase to 4.3-rc2 and get your patch in.
> Thanks for clearing this up.

oops rebase linux-kselftest next i.e

-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248241

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 05:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 10/15/2015 04:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>>>>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>>>>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>>>>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>>>>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>>>>>> the test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>>>>>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes please. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.
>>>
>>> Am I looking at the right tree? linux-kselftest#next doesn't appear to
>>> have the s390 patch that was included in 4.3.
>>>
>>
>> I see what happened. Your patch is linux-next fixes and that went into
>> 4.3-rc2. I can get linux-next rebase to 4.3-rc2 and get your patch in.
>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>
> oops rebase linux-kselftest next i.e

Okay, cool. Let me know if I need to do anything more. :)

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248303

On 10/15/2015 05:02 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2015 05:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2015 04:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>>>>>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>>>>>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>>>>>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>>>>>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>>>>>>> the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>>>>>>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes please. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Am I looking at the right tree? linux-kselftest#next doesn't appear to
>>>> have the s390 patch that was included in 4.3.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see what happened. Your patch is linux-next fixes and that went into
>>> 4.3-rc2. I can get linux-next rebase to 4.3-rc2 and get your patch in.
>>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>>
>> oops rebase linux-kselftest next i.e
> 
> Okay, cool. Let me know if I need to do anything more. :)
> 

Applied to linux-ksefltest next for 4.4-rc1

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248242

On 10/15/2015 04:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2015 01:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> Changing arm64 syscalls is done via a specific register set, more like s390
>>>>> than like arm (specific ptrace call) and x86 (part of general registers).
>>>>> Since (restarting) poll doesn't exist on arm64, switch to using nanosleep
>>>>> for testing restart_syscall. And since it looks like the syscall ABI is
>>>>> inconsistent on arm-compat, so we must work around it (and document it) in
>>>>> the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v3:
>>>>>  - correctly set syscall number on native arm64.
>>>>> v2:
>>>>>  - switch to nanosleep from a bad mix of poll and ppoll for testing restart.
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Is this good to go? Failed to apply to linux-kselftest next.
>>>> If you can rebase and resend. I can get this into 4.4-rc1
>>>
>>> Yes please. :)
>>>
>>
>> ok. Please rebase to linux-kselftest next and resend the patch.
> 
> Am I looking at the right tree? linux-kselftest#next doesn't appear to
> have the s390 patch that was included in 4.3.
> 

I see what happened. Your patch is linux-next fixes and that went into
4.3-rc2. I can get linux-next rebase to 4.3-rc2 and get your patch in.
Thanks for clearing this up.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web