linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: Fix arm64 test installation

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 Jul 2023 15:00:32 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Fix arm64 test installation

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:10:14PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 7/10/23 15:30, Mark Brown wrote:

> > There is a floor on binutils version for the kselftests that's more
> > aggressive than that for the kernel itself, though that looks like RHEL
> > 8 which has binutils 2.30 which *should* be fine for most things - the
> > MTE tests won't build but they do have version detection so should skip,
> > I guess you might have trouble with PAC support which doesn't have
> > detection in the tests?  It's certainly old enough that I'm surprised to
> > hear someone doing development for anything current with it.

> This used to be a development machine, but now it is sufficiently old
> that it is lightly used--that would explain how I could reserve it on
> short notice for this. Maybe I'll adopt it and upgrade to a modern
> distro, now that I seem to need an arm64 box.


> > That does seem to work around the issue at least with a quick out of
> > tree build, including with GCC 8.

> Great news! That's really helpful. And in fact, I have discovered two
> more things:

> 1) The "emit_tests" target is there apparently because commit
> 313a4db7f3387 ("kselftest: arm64: extend toplevel skeleton Makefile")
> believed that it was necessary to skip emitting tests if not on the
> right native platform. I'm tempted to delete the entire emit_tests
> target in both arm64 and riscv selftests (and that also seems to work
> just fine) in order to simplify things, perhaps as a follow up step.

> For now I'll just post the simpler fix, though.

I suspect it might've been needed at the time the patch was written but
subsequent changes in the kselftest Makefile stuff have obsoleted it.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)