linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] selftests/nolibc: small simplification of test development phase

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: <20230123171712.GA13172@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:17:12 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] selftests/nolibc: small simplification of test
 development phase

Hello Paul,

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:47:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And building from sources proved to be reasonably easy, so the test
> now passes for me.  My initial thought of putting qemu-x86_64 into
> my ~/bin directory fails the sudo test, but putting it into /usr/bin
> works fine.

Great!

> Thank you for the hints!
> 
> Should I add a sentence to the commit log noting the potential need to
> build qemu from the git repo and to install qemu-x86_64, give or take
> what architecture one is running?

Well, I've always had all the variants for all supported archs and
didn't know that sometimes only part of them could be installed.
I've used and tested qemu-{i386,x86_64,arm,aarch64,mips,s390x,riscv64}
with this with success, and all of them are built by default for me.
Thus I'm not seeing a good reason for making a special case of x86_64.
Or maybe I'm missing the point ?

Thanks,
Willy