Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Rewrite ptrace-hwbreak.c
 selftest
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        mikey@neuling.org
Cc:     benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        npiggin@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190710045445.31037-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190710045445.31037-4-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <bb9ea415-e328-6dd0-acec-70f298bb2912@c-s.fr>
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:40:49 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bb9ea415-e328-6dd0-acec-70f298bb2912@c-s.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <fe91706b-23ad-829b-e631-d518bc2662d4@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 8/28/19 11:44 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 10/07/2019 à 06:54, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> ptrace-hwbreak.c selftest is logically broken. On powerpc, when
>> watchpoint is created with ptrace, signals are generated before
>> executing the instruction and user has to manually singlestep
>> the instruction with watchpoint disabled, which selftest never
>> does and thus it keeps on getting the signal at the same
>> instruction. If we fix it, selftest fails because the logical
>> connection between tracer(parent) and tracee(child) is also
>> broken. Rewrite the selftest and add new tests for unaligned
>> access.
> 
> On the 8xx, signals are generated after executing the instruction.
> 
> Can we make the test work in both case ?

Sure. I don't mind. I guess, it should be trivial to do that.

But I'm still waiting for Mikey / Mpe's replay on actual patches.
Mikey, mpe, is it ok to not ignore actual events but generate false 
positive events? Is there any other better approach?

Ravi