From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Enke Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal: Signal-based pre-coredump notification Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:49:11 -0700 Message-ID: <614dad0f-97e3-91b4-0c29-c052d01922eb@cisco.com> References: <20181013064023.GA28177@kroah.com> <37401cea-5a37-2cd9-8595-8b07dfc4de7d@cisco.com> <20181015184358.GA12153@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181015184358.GA12153@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , Khalid Aziz , Kate Stewart , Helge Deller , Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Christian Brauner , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Dave Martin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Michal Hocko , Rik van Riel , Kirill A. Shutemov List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Hi, Greg: On 10/15/18 11:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:16:36AM -0700, Enke Chen wrote: >> Hi, Greg: >> >>> Shouldn't there also be a manpage update, and a kselftest added for this >>> new user/kernel api that is being created? >>> >> >> I will submit a patch for manpage update once the code is accepted. > > Writing a manpage update is key to see if what you are describing > actually matches the code you have submitted. You should do both at the > same time so that they can be reviewed together. Ok, will do at the same time. But should I submit it as a separate patch? > >> Regarding the kselftest, I am not sure. Once the prctl() is limited to >> self (which I will do), the logic would be pretty straightforward. Not >> sure if the selftest would add much value. > > If you do not have a test for this feature, how do you know it even > works at all? How will you know if it breaks in a future kernel > release? Have you tested this? If so, how? I have the test code. I am just not sure whether I should submit and check it in to the kselftest? Thanks. -- Enke From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com ([173.37.142.88]:4250 "EHLO alln-iport-1.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726707AbeJPCfq (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2018 22:35:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal: Signal-based pre-coredump notification References: <20181013064023.GA28177@kroah.com> <37401cea-5a37-2cd9-8595-8b07dfc4de7d@cisco.com> <20181015184358.GA12153@kroah.com> From: Enke Chen Message-ID: <614dad0f-97e3-91b4-0c29-c052d01922eb@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:49:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181015184358.GA12153@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , Khalid Aziz , Kate Stewart , Helge Deller , Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Christian Brauner , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Dave Martin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Michal Hocko , Rik van Riel , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Roman Gushchin , Marcos Paulo de Souza , Oleg Nesterov , Dominik Brodowski , Cyrill Gorcunov , Yang Shi , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Victor Kamensky (kamensky)" , xe-linux-external@cisco.com, Stefan Strogin , Enke Chen Message-ID: <20181015184911.OA-9OxF5SyWNjT7IZELIQ8h7XFnWPvofxSqT7Ddl4UY@z> Hi, Greg: On 10/15/18 11:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:16:36AM -0700, Enke Chen wrote: >> Hi, Greg: >> >>> Shouldn't there also be a manpage update, and a kselftest added for this >>> new user/kernel api that is being created? >>> >> >> I will submit a patch for manpage update once the code is accepted. > > Writing a manpage update is key to see if what you are describing > actually matches the code you have submitted. You should do both at the > same time so that they can be reviewed together. Ok, will do at the same time. But should I submit it as a separate patch? > >> Regarding the kselftest, I am not sure. Once the prctl() is limited to >> self (which I will do), the logic would be pretty straightforward. Not >> sure if the selftest would add much value. > > If you do not have a test for this feature, how do you know it even > works at all? How will you know if it breaks in a future kernel > release? Have you tested this? If so, how? I have the test code. I am just not sure whether I should submit and check it in to the kselftest? Thanks. -- Enke