From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751427AbaHaMwk (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:52:40 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:47408 "EHLO mail-lb0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751119AbaHaMwh (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:52:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1409369788-22563-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> From: Pranith Kumar Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:52:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Anton Blanchard , Fabian Frederick , Andrew Morton , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Geert, On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pranith, > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> I see that the three syscalls seccomp, getrandom and memfd_create are not wired >> because of which we get a warning while compilation. >> >> So I wired them up in this patch. What else needs to be done? I tried the >> memfd_test after compiling this kernel, but it is failing. What am I missing for >> this to work? Any advice is really appreciated! :) > > Did it fail due to the (silly) "ifeq ($(ARCH),X86)" checks in > tools/testing/selftests/memfd/Makefile? > I removed that check and compiled memfd_test.c by hand. This is the following error which I get when I run the test: $ ./memfd_test memfd: CREATE memfd: BASIC 10 != 0 = GET_SEALS(3) Aborted This is basically when checking the seals which we already added. It should return 10 (F_SEAL_SHRINK | F_SEAL_WRITE), instead it is returning 0. What else needs to be done for this to properly work? I see that for m68k, you just wired it up like in this patch. Did it work after that? -- Pranith From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5431A160F for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:52:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z11so4618587lbi.22 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 05:52:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1409369788-22563-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> From: Pranith Kumar Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:52:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls To: Geert Uytterhoeven Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: open list , Fabian Frederick , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Andrew Morton , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Geert, On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pranith, > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> I see that the three syscalls seccomp, getrandom and memfd_create are not wired >> because of which we get a warning while compilation. >> >> So I wired them up in this patch. What else needs to be done? I tried the >> memfd_test after compiling this kernel, but it is failing. What am I missing for >> this to work? Any advice is really appreciated! :) > > Did it fail due to the (silly) "ifeq ($(ARCH),X86)" checks in > tools/testing/selftests/memfd/Makefile? > I removed that check and compiled memfd_test.c by hand. This is the following error which I get when I run the test: $ ./memfd_test memfd: CREATE memfd: BASIC 10 != 0 = GET_SEALS(3) Aborted This is basically when checking the seals which we already added. It should return 10 (F_SEAL_SHRINK | F_SEAL_WRITE), instead it is returning 0. What else needs to be done for this to properly work? I see that for m68k, you just wired it up like in this patch. Did it work after that? -- Pranith