Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:23:35 +0530 | From | Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <> | Subject | Re: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace |
| |
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
| |