public inbox for live-patching@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
	Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] selftests: livepatch: Check for ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER config
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:10:20 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aeJ3jPszYCpte8SY@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aeJNnFqLEdMgnHKh@pathway.suse.cz>

On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 05:11:24PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2026-04-15 11:58:50, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Apr 2026, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > 
> > > Older kernels that lack CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER config don't
> > > have any prefixes for their syscalls. The same applies to current
> > > powerpc and loongarch, covering all currently supported architectures
> > > that support livepatch.
> > > 
> > > The other supported architectures have specific prefixes, so error out
> > > when a new architecture adds livepatch support with wrappes but didn't
> > > update the test to include it.
> > > 
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c
> > > @@ -12,15 +12,26 @@
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > >  #include <linux/livepatch.h>
> > >  
> > > -#if defined(__x86_64__)
> > > +/*
> > > + * Before CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER was introduced there were no
> > > + * prefixes for system calls.
> > > + * Both ppc and loongarch does not set prefixes for their system calls either.
> > > + */
> > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER) ||  defined(__powerpc__) || \
> > > +	defined(__loongarch__)
> > > +#define FN_PREFIX
> > > +#elif defined(__x86_64__)
> > >  #define FN_PREFIX __x64_
> > >  #elif defined(__s390x__)
> > >  #define FN_PREFIX __s390x_
> > >  #elif defined(__aarch64__)
> > >  #define FN_PREFIX __arm64_
> > > -#else
> > > -/* powerpc does not select ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER */
> > > +#elif defined(__powerpc__)
> > > +#define FN_PREFIX
> > > +#elif defined(__loongarch__)
> > >  #define FN_PREFIX
> > > +#else
> > > +#error "Missing syscall wrapper for the given architecture."
> > >  #endif
> > 
> > I know that Sashiko commented on that already but even with that I wonder 
> > if it was cleaner to structure it differently...
> > 
> > #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER)
> >   #if define(__x86_64__)
> >   ...
> >   #elif define(__powerpc__)
> >     #define FN_PREFIX
> >   #else
> >     #error
> >   #endif
> > #elif
> >   #define FN_PREFIX
> > #endif
> 
> Yeah, this looks better.
> 

Agreed, if there is v3, this would definitely be clearer.

--
Joe


  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-17 18:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-13 17:26 [PATCH v2 0/6] kselftests: livepatch: Adapt tests to be executed on 4.12 kernels Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] selftests: livepatch: Check for ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER config Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-15  9:58   ` Miroslav Benes
2026-04-17 15:11     ` Petr Mladek
2026-04-17 18:10       ` Joe Lawrence [this message]
2026-04-17 18:14   ` Joe Lawrence
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] selftests: livepatch: Replace true/false module parameter by y/n Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] selftests: livepatch: Introduce does_sysfs_exists function Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-17 18:15   ` Joe Lawrence
2026-04-17 18:18   ` Joe Lawrence
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] selftests: livepatch: Check if patched sysfs attribute exists Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-17 15:21   ` Petr Mladek
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] selftests: livepatch: Check if replace " Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-13 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] selftests: livepatch: Check if stack_order " Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-14 12:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] kselftests: livepatch: Adapt tests to be executed on 4.12 kernels Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-15 12:01 ` Miroslav Benes
2026-04-15 12:37   ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-16 13:24     ` Miroslav Benes
2026-04-16 17:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2026-04-16 18:18   ` Marcos Paulo de Souza
2026-04-17 18:36     ` Joe Lawrence

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=aeJ3jPszYCpte8SY@redhat.com \
    --to=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
    --cc=jikos@kernel.org \
    --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=mpdesouza@suse.com \
    --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