On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/15/2015 12:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 217-8978 -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
