linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add 7 tests for memcmp()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:57:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add 7 tests for memcmp()

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:39:22AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 08:53:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Will keep thinking about it and hopefully propose a patch to make the
> > > tests easier to use before we're too far in the 6.1 release.
> > 
> > Another possibility is to have a separate developers' and maintainers'
> > option.  Linus and I do "make whatever" for some value of "whatever"
> > that builds from scratch, doing whatever cleaning that might be required.
> > Developers use targets that are faster but have the possibility of false
> > positives and false negatives.
> > 
> > But maybe you have something better in mind.
> > 
> > > Thanks for keeping the conversation flowing, that helps me!
> > 
> > Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
> 
> I could finally figure what was taking time in the installation process.
> Interestingly, it's "make headers", which is not redone without a "make
> clean" at the kernel level. The "make headers_install" only takes a few
> hundred milliseconds, so issuing a systematic "make clean" in the nolibc
> test dir only takes ~800ms here to perform a full rebuild, which is totally
> acceptable to me.
> 
> Thus what I've done is to mark the sysroot target as .phony and start it
> with a removal of the current include dir so that we systematically rebuild
> it. Now there's no such risk of running a test against an earlier version
> anymore, and there are no "make clean" to worry about anymore either.
> That looks much better to me!
> 
> And I could confirm that just issuing:
> 
>   $ time make -j8 -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc run
> 
> after reverting Rasmus' fix led me to this pretty quickly:
> 
>   ...
>   Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready  (#3)
>   make[1]: Leaving directory '/k'
>   15 memcmp_20_e0 = 64                    [FAIL]
>   16 memcmp_e0_20 = -64                   [FAIL]
>   See all results in /k/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run.out
>   make: Leaving directory '/k/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc'
> 
>   real    0m14.538s
>   user    0m27.828s
>   sys     0m4.576s
> 
> No more false positives nor false negatives anymore. I'm sending you
> the patch separately.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion, the solution is way better now!

Nice, looking forward to the patch!

							Thanx, Paul