Re: [PATCH 08/17] ptrace/m68k: Stop open coding ptrace_report_syscall

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:20 AM Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 12.01.2022 um 11:42 schrieb Finn Thain:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >>> In fact Michael did so in "[PATCH v7 1/2] m68k/kernel - wire up
> >>> syscall_trace_enter/leave for m68k"[1], but that's still stuck...
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/1624924520-17567-2-git-send-email-schmitzmic@xxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> >> That patch (for reasons I never found out) did interact badly with
> >> Christoph Hellwig's 'remove set_fs' patches (and Al's signal fixes which
> >> Christoph's patches are based upon). Caused format errors under memory
> >> stress tests quite reliably, on my 030 hardware.
> >>
> >
> > Those patches have since been merged, BTW.
>
> Yes, that's why I advised caution with mine.
>
> >
> >> Probably needs a fresh look - the signal return path got changed by Al's
> >> patches IIRC, and I might have relied on offsets to data on the stack
> >> that are no longer correct with these patches. Or there's a race between
> >> the syscall trap and signal handling when returning from interrupt
> >> context ...
> >>
> >> Still school hols over here so I won't have much peace and quiet until
> >> February.
> >>
> >
> > So the patch works okay with Aranym 68040 but not Motorola 68030? Since
>
> Correct - I seem to recall we also tested those on your 040 and there
> was no regression there, but I may be misremembering that.
>
> > there is at least one known issue affecting both Motorola 68030 and Hatari
> > 68030, perhaps this patch is not the problem. In anycase, Al's suggestion
>
> I hadn't ever made that connection, but it might be another explanation,
> yes.
>
> > to split the patch into two may help in that testing two smaller patches
> > might narrow down the root cause.
>
> That's certainly true.
>
> What's the other reason these patches are still stuck, Geert? Did we
> ever settle the dispute about what return code ought to abort a syscall
> (in the seccomp context)?

IIRC, some (self)tests were still failing?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds