linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 resend 00/20] ILP32 for ARM64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:42:24 +0200
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
        philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com,
        Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        zhouchengming1@...wei.com,
        Steve Ellcey <sellcey@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com, Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
        agraf@...e.de, szabolcs.nagy@....com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        manuel.montezelo@...il.com, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>, linyongting@...wei.com,
        klimov.linux@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        Bamvor Zhangjian <bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
        Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@...glemail.com>,
        schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 resend 00/20] ILP32 for ARM64

On 04/11/2017 08:36 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Also, the latest benchmarks I've seen were mostly for user space
>> while I'm more concerned with the user-kernel interface
>> (https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=148690490713310&w=2).
>
>> On the glibc testing side, have the regressions been identified/fixed?
>
> I run LTP for testing the ABI and kernel, and there is no failures in
> ltplite scenario. With glibc testsuite, there's only 3 failures
> comparing to lp64. (Steve, fix me if something changed.) This is
> slides on ilp32 from Linaro Connect, hope you'll find it useful.
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TKZqgH0XJUgMMGkw2fJA3Lzr57slht1sGKYJVBJTNM4/edit?usp=sharing

The listed failures are:

misc/tst-sync_file_range
nptl/tst-stack4
malloc/tst-mallocstate

If necessary, I will fix malloc/tst-mallocstate once there's support for 
a new architecture in build-many-glibcs.py.  The failure is 
architecture-independent, it's related to the lack of a compat symbol 
and the difficulty of checking for that at the Makefile or test level.

nptl/tst-stack4 is also a generic failure, I think.

misc/tst-sync_file_range is probably a real failure related to argument 
passing.  I think this system call was problematic on other 
architectures, too.

Thanks,
Florian

(Sorry for the wide Cc: list despite the glibc content.)