On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 12:29:21pm +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> Hi
>
> this patchset aims to add the initial arch-specific arm64 support to
> kselftest starting with signals-related test-cases.
> A common internal test-case layout is proposed which then it is anyway
> wired-up to the toplevel kselftest Makefile, so that it should be possible
> at the end to run it on an arm64 target in the usual way with KSFT.
BTW, it's helpful to state the base branch / commit as clearly as
possible near the top of the cover letter, say,
--8<--
This series is based on arm64/for-next/core [1]
commit 9ce1263033cd ("selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel")
[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/core
-->8--
This is particularly important if you expect the maintainer to pick up
the patches.
You don't need to reference a specific commit unless there's a
significant chance of conflicts if the wrong commit is used, but it can
help provide a clue as to why you're basing on this alternate branch.
> ~/linux# make TARGETS=arm64 kselftest
>
> New KSFT arm64 testcases live inside tools/testing/selftests/arm64 grouped by
> family inside subdirectories: arm64/signal is the first family proposed with
> this series.
> This series converts also to this subdirectory scheme the pre-existing
> (already queued on arm64/for-next/core) KSFT arm64 tags tests, moving them
> into arm64/tags.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cristian
>
>
> Notes:
> -----
> - further details in the included READMEs
>
> - more tests still to be written (current strategy is going through the related
> Kernel signal-handling code and write a test for each possible and sensible code-path)
> A few ideas for more TODO testcases:
> - fake_sigreturn_unmapped_sp: SP into unmapped addrs
> - fake_sigreturn_kernelspace_sp: SP into kernel addrs
> - fake_sigreturn_sve_bad_extra_context: SVE extra context badly formed
> - mangle_sve_invalid_extra_context: SVE extra_context invalid
>
> - SVE signal testcases and special handling will be part of an additional patch
> still to be released
What's your approach to checking that the test failure paths work?
We could either hack the kernel or the tests to provoke "fake" failures,
and I don't think it's necessary to test everything in this way,
providing we have confidence that the test strategy and framework works
in general.
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
