Re: [LTP] ltp_clone alignment issues.

Hannu Heikkinen
2010-10-04T19:09:34Z

On 04/10/10 06:28 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO <carmelo.amoroso@st.com> wrote:
-clip-
> >
> > Hannu,
> > I don't think that it is a good to force the alignment; we could need to
> > write a test case that calls LTP_clone with an unaligned stack just to
> > test the behavior of the clone implementation.
> >
> > Likely, it should be useful to add a check inside the C lib clone
> > implementation (arch specific) to protect against unaligned stack, but
> > this is a different matter.
> >
> > I would just leave the LTP_clone passing the argument to the clone as
> > they came from the caller.
>
> I believe this is already handled to some degree with the clone
> testcases. If not that should be added and I'll review patches which
> add this testing to LTP.
> On a semi-unrelated note could you guys please test out the
> attached patch to make sure that there isn't a functional difference
> if you have access to ia64, s390, etc?
> Thanks,
> -Garrett

Hi,

Garret, I did git pull and applied your patch, gcc whined about missing
CHILD_STACK_SIZE... is it in your some other patch? IFor the time being I
added CHILD_STACK_SIZE into test.h, but is it what you wanted initially?

I can test clones for arm 32-bit (BeagleBoard/Cortex A8) and AMD64 (Debian 64-bit)
environments. Sadly I do not have SPARCs, nor s390...

br,
Hannu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized
environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security
easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the
two and get a better understanding.