Re: new syscalls

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 22:53, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 13:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > That's an excellent point.
> > 
> > Guys, architecture maintainers need test suites to verify that the syscalls
> > actually work as they wire them up.  Please share.  A stable URL would be
> > preferred - something which can go into the changlog or conceivably into
> > the kernel source.
> 
> http://david.woodhou.se/sigmasking.c is a good one for testing
> sigsuspend after hooking up TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK stuff and the generic
> sys_rt_sigsuspend(), although it's not actually my code. There were a
> bunch of other tests in a tarball with that (on linux-arch a year or two
> ago) which arch maintainers should also use occasionally when they play
> with signal or ptrace code.

Are you sure it's even working? I implemented TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK
for x86-64 and the SEGV part of the test fails. But it even fails
without any of my patches applied, so if it's really broken
it was always like this. I suspect i would have heard if such
a fundamental thing was really broken on x86-64.

===== Test 2: signal SIGALRM while waiting in nanosleep() =====

Unblocking all signals
Calling alarm(2)
Calling nanosleep( 20s)
After return from nanosleep(), blocked all signals, saved returned mask
OK: nanosleep(): Interrupted system call
OK: sighandler for SIGALRM (14) didn't run (invalid stack)
OK: SIGSEGV is unmasked at end of test
ERROR: sighandler for SIGSEGV (11) didn't run
OK: SIGUSR1 is unmasked
OK: SIGUSR2 is unmasked
SIGSEGV is pending at end of test, unblocking it now ...
Signal 11 caught
... done

-Andi