On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:12 AM, David Long <dave.long@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/19/15 00:19, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 12:42 -0400, David Long wrote: >>> >>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The pt_regs_offset structure is used for HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API >>> feature and has identical definitions in four different arch ptrace.h >>> include files. It seems unlikely that definition would ever need to be >>> changed regardless of architecture so lets move it into >>> include/linux/ptrace.h. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 ----- >> >> >> Built and booted on powerpc, but is there an easy way to actually test the >> code >> paths in question? >> > > There is an easy way to "smoke test" it on all archiectures that also > implement kprobes (which powerpc does). If I'm understanding the powerpc > code correctly (WRT register naming conventions) just do the following: > > cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing > echo 'p do_fork %gpr0' > kprobe_events > echo 1 > events/kprobes/enable > ls > cat trace > echo 0 > events/kprobes/enable > > Every fork() call done on the system between those two echo commands (hence > the "ls") should append a line to the trace file. For a more exhaustive > test one could repeat this sequence for every register in the architecture. > > This should work the same on all architectures supporting kprobes. You just > have to use the appropriate register names for your architecture after the > "%". Is this something we could codify into the selftests directory? It seems like a great thing to capture in a single place somewhere (the register lists, that is). -Kees > >> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> cheers >> >> > > Thanks, > -dl > -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
