From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667E22EA171 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776247133; cv=none; b=l809FqID2XCM0xda2DnGQCmEv+1YRhrDcm/18SPLJXnJSo/eflSi8OGaI1sfZtXt+gvR3+W1AhAtklChrR4QQ7yRdjY5Laq/tKYgcQms9UyrmOFugikFupJSBHcp0CfzMMf84biAtelHswB+FRD2ZZ3HFplxuywne/nqQwbxGyU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776247133; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FJjQg6+ajwdSb2YinDQGQQVPHZXIXGCeuUqs30O3xQs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fkhiTtriGOIXo/0QD3ve8kRDl3K61DV8Ddo15uDBVrZwOjYF0c6Z5kAhfDdY2a1vCFkqSQamp6QfksAgZMAjbgXNbenbsDX61wL6/RbFs6jGw7kV+TAjiJ8yg8J/Ceyay12jCYC7D7r0HeNqT2+ZQpbkPIkGAm9Hs94VftT4a4g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=vDB2QW89; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=zQfjjTKa; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=vDB2QW89; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=zQfjjTKa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="vDB2QW89"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="zQfjjTKa"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="vDB2QW89"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="zQfjjTKa" Received: from pobox.suse.cz (unknown [10.128.32.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893EB6A7E3; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:58:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1776247130; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dcRxfkAdzDk7Zhvra4nNB/DbQIffMMgrxS8OnxtUX7g=; b=vDB2QW892Air6/p0thgJ/jce/Zi5L3hZaWdWObz34lA/yA78Qs7JNjuUJoDAcip1lHIoJU kxvNa7LXuB19CqSgpRYv/w/niEDD6DxxHrJcsYq11ezWM0gN8Avcc37swz+D1Ljo+nKa9j ISGkDj7rop7WvcLZ2LCxeZqv8/EndL0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1776247130; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dcRxfkAdzDk7Zhvra4nNB/DbQIffMMgrxS8OnxtUX7g=; b=zQfjjTKaw43oE0mL6WQ+pTStG7SqjkmF0jSpbbL4uqusxkED7U+V0V9zxpzFbjGeVyebeA GUNMA2S8/CFktGAg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1776247130; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dcRxfkAdzDk7Zhvra4nNB/DbQIffMMgrxS8OnxtUX7g=; b=vDB2QW892Air6/p0thgJ/jce/Zi5L3hZaWdWObz34lA/yA78Qs7JNjuUJoDAcip1lHIoJU kxvNa7LXuB19CqSgpRYv/w/niEDD6DxxHrJcsYq11ezWM0gN8Avcc37swz+D1Ljo+nKa9j ISGkDj7rop7WvcLZ2LCxeZqv8/EndL0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1776247130; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dcRxfkAdzDk7Zhvra4nNB/DbQIffMMgrxS8OnxtUX7g=; b=zQfjjTKaw43oE0mL6WQ+pTStG7SqjkmF0jSpbbL4uqusxkED7U+V0V9zxpzFbjGeVyebeA GUNMA2S8/CFktGAg== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:58:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Miroslav Benes To: Marcos Paulo de Souza cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Jiri Kosina , Petr Mladek , Joe Lawrence , Shuah Khan , 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 In-Reply-To: <20260413-lp-tests-old-fixes-v2-1-367c7cb5006f@suse.com> Message-ID: References: <20260413-lp-tests-old-fixes-v2-0-367c7cb5006f@suse.com> <20260413-lp-tests-old-fixes-v2-1-367c7cb5006f@suse.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -4.30 X-Spam-Level: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:email] X-Spam-Flag: NO 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. > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza > --- > .../selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c > index dd802783ea84..b5527a288a7c 100644 > --- 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 > #include > > -#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 ? I still hope that it will be sufficient and we do not have to introduce KERNEL_VERSION checks since wrappers changed/will change. Miroslav