linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] selftest/x86: build both bitnesses

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANMBJr6F0Aax1CDDURxDN+0oJYoERz8D48_o1qMfs5krKJfwyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:31:31 -0700
From:	Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] selftest/x86: build both bitnesses

On 17 April 2015 at 15:27, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 17 April 2015 at 15:06, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>> Using uname with the processor flag option in some cases can yield 'unknown'
>>>> so lets use the machine flag option as it is deterministic. Add a dependency
>>>> for all_32 when building on a x86 64 bit host so that both bitnesses are
>>>> built in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile | 6 +++---
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
>>>> index f0a7918..57090ad 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
>>>> @@ -7,14 +7,14 @@ BINARIES_64 := $(TARGETS_C_BOTHBITS:%=%_64)
>>>>
>>>>  CFLAGS := -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall
>>>>
>>>> -UNAME_P := $(shell uname -p)
>>>> +UNAME_M := $(shell uname -m)
>>>>
>>>>  # Always build 32-bit tests
>>>>  all: all_32
>>>>
>>>>  # If we're on a 64-bit host, build 64-bit tests as well
>>>> -ifeq ($(shell uname -p),x86_64)
>>>> -all: all_64
>>>> +ifeq ($(UNAME_M),x86_64)
>>>> +all: all_32 all_64
>>>
>>> This duplicates the all: all_32 above.
>>
>> I agree with you but the behavior is different than expected.
>>
>> From a clean linux-next tree building on a 64-bit x86 host
>>
>> (jessie)tyler@...alhost:~/Dev/kernels/linux$ git describe
>> next-20150415
>> (jessie)tyler@...alhost:~/Dev/kernels/linux$ uname -m
>> x86_64
>> (jessie)tyler@...alhost:~/Dev/kernels/linux$ make -C
>> tools/testing/selftests/x86/
>> make: Entering directory
>> '/home/tyler/Dev/kernels/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86'
>> cc -m32 -o sigreturn_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall  sigreturn.c -lrt -ldl
>> make: Leaving directory
>> '/home/tyler/Dev/kernels/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86'
>>
>> With this series applied on top I get
>>
>> (jessie)tyler@...alhost:~/Dev/kernels/linux$ make -C
>> tools/testing/selftests/x86/
>> make: Entering directory
>> '/home/tyler/Dev/kernels/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86'
>> Makefile:41: warning: overriding recipe for target 'run_tests'
>> ../lib.mk:12: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'run_tests'
>
> That can't be a good sign.
>
>> gcc -m32 -o sigreturn_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall  sigreturn.c -lrt -ldl
>> gcc -m64 -o sigreturn_64 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall  sigreturn.c -lrt -ldl
>> make: Leaving directory
>> '/home/tyler/Dev/kernels/linux/tools/testing/selftests/x86'
>>
>> Which is what I expected.
>
> I meant specifically this line:
>
> +all: all_32 all_64
>
> The rest of this patch looks okay.

You are right again. On my machine 'uname -p' returns 'unknown' so
that is why it's not building the 64-bit test on -next :) I'll fix
this up.

>
> --Andy

Tyler
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/