On Wednesday 18 January 2006 22:53, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 13:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > That's an excellent point. > > > > Guys, architecture maintainers need test suites to verify that the syscalls > > actually work as they wire them up. Please share. A stable URL would be > > preferred - something which can go into the changlog or conceivably into > > the kernel source. > > http://david.woodhou.se/sigmasking.c is a good one for testing > sigsuspend after hooking up TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK stuff and the generic > sys_rt_sigsuspend(), although it's not actually my code. There were a > bunch of other tests in a tarball with that (on linux-arch a year or two > ago) which arch maintainers should also use occasionally when they play > with signal or ptrace code.
Are you sure it's even working? I implemented TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK for x86-64 and the SEGV part of the test fails. But it even fails without any of my patches applied, so if it's really broken it was always like this. I suspect i would have heard if such a fundamental thing was really broken on x86-64. ===== Test 2: signal SIGALRM while waiting in nanosleep() ===== Unblocking all signals Calling alarm(2) Calling nanosleep( 20s) After return from nanosleep(), blocked all signals, saved returned mask OK: nanosleep(): Interrupted system call OK: sighandler for SIGALRM (14) didn't run (invalid stack) OK: SIGSEGV is unmasked at end of test ERROR: sighandler for SIGSEGV (11) didn't run OK: SIGUSR1 is unmasked OK: SIGUSR2 is unmasked SIGSEGV is pending at end of test, unblocking it now ... Signal 11 caught ... done -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
