On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 03:40:39PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

[+Kees]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 11:40:12AM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:

quoted

Test output:
 TAP version 13
 1..2
 # selftests: arm64/ptrace: ptrace_syscall_raw_regs_test
 # 1..2
 # ok 1 x7: 686920776f726c64
 # ok 2 The child exited with code 0.
 # # Totals: pass:2 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
 ok 1 selftests: arm64/ptrace: ptrace_syscall_raw_regs_test
 # selftests: arm64/ptrace: ptrace_syscall_regs_test
 # 1..3
 # ok 1 x7: 0
 # ok 2 x7: 1
 # ok 3 The child exited with code 0.
 # # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
 ok 2 selftests: arm64/ptrace: ptrace_syscall_regs_test

Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <redacted>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/Makefile        |   2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/ptrace/Makefile |   6 +
 .../ptrace/ptrace_syscall_raw_regs_test.c     | 142 +++++++++++++++++
 .../arm64/ptrace/ptrace_syscall_regs_test.c   | 150 ++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 299 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/ptrace/Makefile
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/ptrace/ptrace_syscall_raw_regs_test.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/ptrace/ptrace_syscall_regs_test.c

Thanks for the tests!

We already have a pretty extensive set of syscall entry tests in
tools/testing/selftests/seccomp, so perhaps this would be better off as part
of that? Maybe worth a look.

I'm happy with this living in either place -- I can make an argument
either way. If it's arm64-specific, maybe better to live outside of
seccomp?

-- 
Kees Cook

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel