Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
To:     thomas@t-8ch.de
Cc:     falcon@tinylab.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        w@1wt.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftests/nolibc: add user-space 'efault' handler
Date:   Tue,  6 Jun 2023 12:04:50 +0800
Message-Id: <20230606040450.353900-1-falcon@tinylab.org>
In-Reply-To: <c6129c15-7e95-4f6c-b4db-c6b5daa6d3cc@t-8ch.de>
References: <c6129c15-7e95-4f6c-b4db-c6b5daa6d3cc@t-8ch.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:tinylab.org:qybglogicsvrsz:qybglogicsvrsz3a-3
Precedence: bulk

> On 2023-06-04 13:05:18+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Zhangjin,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 06:47:38PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > > Hi, Willy, Thomas
> > > 
> > 
> > Just let us know if you think that's something you could be interested
> > in exploring. There might be differences between architectures, I have
> > not checked.
> 
> If the goal is to handle hard errors like segfaults more gracefully,
> would it not be easier to run each testcase in a subprocess?
> 
> Then we can just check if the child exited successfully.
>

Yeah, it is easier, it may be possible to simply pass the test case to
something like test_fork() and let the child to run it there.

I will take a try, thanks very much.

> It should also be completely architecture agnostic.

It is for we can reuse the test_fork() stuff.

Best regards,
Zhangjin

> 
> Thomas