Re: [PATCH] Add UNSUPPORTED check in elf/tst-pldd.

[Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot ibm dot com>]

On 9/6/19 5:21 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 9/3/19 9:34 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > Yes, my initial suggestion was just to make it as UNSUPPORTED for
> > ptrace_scope >= 1. But I do not oppose adjusting it to run on
> > ptrace_scope 1, it is just that the required hackery lead to make it
> > somewhat as complex than the test itself.
>
> The flip side of the coin is that the more "UNSUPPORTED" results we
> add *implies* there is "one valid way" to setup a glibc test run
> and we don't clearly document how to turn all the "UNSUPPORTED"
> entries into supported tests?
>
> Stefan's code can at least be refactored into support/ if we need
> to do the same thing again in another test.

PING.

As I have already posted multiple versions of the patch, how to proceed?
1) UNSUPPORTED if support_ptrace_scope() >= 2;
Support support_ptrace_scope() == 1
by adjusting the process tree;
(see https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-09/msg00024.html)

2) UNSUPPORTED if support_ptrace_scope() >= 2;
Support support_ptrace_scope() == 1
by calling support_ptrace_process_set_ptracer_any();
(see https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-08/msg00722.html)

3) UNSUPPORTED if support_ptrace_scope() != 0
(patch would use support_ptrace_scope() of one of the patches above in 
order to trigger FAIL_UNSUPPORTED)

Bye,
Stefan