linux-kernel - Re: ILP32 for ARM64: testing with glibc testsuite

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]

Message-ID: <20161117155056.6xkldspks6dwoj7z@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
        "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com,
        bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
        klimov.linux@...il.com, Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, agraf@...e.de,
        Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com>,
        kilobyte@...band.pl, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Dr. Philipp Tomsich" <philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com>,
        manuel.montezelo@...il.com, linyongting@...wei.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, zhouchengming1@...wei.com,
        cmetcalf@...hip.com,
        Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
        Steve Ellcey <sellcey@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: ILP32 for ARM64: testing with glibc testsuite

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:22:26PM +0400, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Regarding ILP32 runtime, my opinion is that it is acceptable for ILP32
> to have extra failures compared to LP64, since these are not
> regressions, but, rather, failures of a new configuration.

I disagree with this. We definitely need to understand why they fail,
otherwise we run the risk of potential glibc or kernel implementation
bugs becoming ABI.

-- 
Catalin