From: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] selftests: livepatch: test-syscall: Check for ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:24:05 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a72dbd0523254209a733ec9e89466e7f0dc3e00.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2603201136401.12616@pobox.suse.cz>
On Fri, 2026-03-20 at 11:45 +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > So I would perhaps prefer to stay with the logic that defines
> > > FN_PREFIX
> > > per architecture and has also #else branch for the rest. And more
> > > comments
> > > never hurt.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Hm, so I thought about a bit more and I very likely misunderstood the
> motivation behind the patch. I will speculate and correct me if I am
> wrong, please. The idea behind the whole patch set is to make the
> selftests run on older kernels which I think is something we should
> support. The issue is that old kernels (like mentioned 4.12) do not
> have
> syscall wrappers at all. getpid() syscall is just plain old
> sys_getpid
> there and not the current __x64_sys_getpid on x86. The patch fixes it
> by checking CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER and defining FN_PREFIX
> accordingly.
Exactly. The definition was added on
commit 1bd21c6c21e848996339508d3ffb106d505256a8
Author: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
Date: Thu Apr 5 11:53:01 2018 +0200
syscalls/core: Introduce CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER=y
>
> So, if this is correct, I think it should be done differently. We
> should
> have something like syscall_wrapper.h which would define FN_PREFIX
> for
> the supported architectures and different kernel versions since the
> wrappers may have changed a couple of times during the history. In
> that
> case there could then be an #else branch which might just error out
> with
> the message to add proper syscall wrapper naming.
Well, it seems too much for a simple test to me, but I can do that, no
problem.
>
> The changelog then should explain it because it is not in fact tight
> to
> powerpc.
Makes sense, I'll change it.
>
> What do you think? Am I off again?
I agree with everything, but adding another header file seems a little
too much work for a simple test case, but it's doable. Let me work on
it.
>
> Miroslav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-27 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-13 20:58 [PATCH 0/8] kselftests: livepatch: Adapt tests to be executed on 4.12 kernels Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 1/8] selftests: livepatch: test-syscall: Check for ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-16 20:12 ` Joe Lawrence
2026-03-19 12:54 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-19 14:11 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 10:45 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-27 13:24 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza [this message]
2026-03-27 13:16 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-31 18:54 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-01 7:41 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 2/8] selftests: livepatch: test-kprobe: Replace true/false mod param by 1/0 Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-19 13:03 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-19 14:16 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 11:18 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 3/8] selftests: livepatch: test-kprobe: Check if kprobes can work with livepatches Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-16 20:38 ` Joe Lawrence
2026-03-19 14:35 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 11:33 ` Petr Mladek
2026-03-27 13:43 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 4/8] selftests: livepatch: functions: Introduce check_sysfs_exists Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-16 20:47 ` Joe Lawrence
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 5/8] selftests: livepatch: sysfs: Split tests of replace attribute Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 13:03 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-20 13:12 ` Petr Mladek
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 6/8] selftests: livepatch: sysfs: Split tests of stack_order attribute Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 7/8] selftests: livepatch: sysfs: Split tests of patched attribute Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 8/8] selftests: livepatch: functions.sh: Extend check for taint flag kernel message Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 13:04 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-03-20 13:26 ` Petr Mladek
2026-03-20 13:41 ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-03-20 13:31 ` [PATCH 0/8] kselftests: livepatch: Adapt tests to be executed on 4.12 kernels Petr Mladek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9a72dbd0523254209a733ec9e89466e7f0dc3e00.camel@suse.com \
--to=mpdesouza@suse.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox