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)