On 7/29/26 8:31 AM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
On Tue, 2026-07-14 at 10:47 -0500, Bill Roberts wrote:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack_prctl.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack_prctl.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c9e2728a9f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack_prctl.c
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#define BUILD_PRCTL 1
+#include "test_shadow_stack.c"
--
Hmm, do we really need a full re-test for the different prctl routing?
Bear with me, I am quite perplexed, usually tests are meant with fanfare.
Yes we want this! It ensures all regressions are caught and features are
working
as intended through both interfaces. This means, nothing broke for x86
in this change.
Tests are cheap, I have no idea why we wouldn't want this.
Now, what I did want to propose in the future, is moving a generic test
up out of
arch specific tests that would run on all systems. This will require me
to look at all
3 arches and build a test suite. However, I wanted to ensure that
nothing broke for x86,
this ensures that. I was going to roll those patches after the LSM
changes go up.
As an aside and hearkening back to your comment on UNLOCK in patch 1,
the test never tests UNLOCK.
