linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage

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: <aa77a065-fcc9-4d3a-8531-fd994587c48f@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:34:53 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage

On 2023-10-12 12:06:33-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:39:14PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2023-10-12 11:25:02-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [..]

> > > I have a signed tag urgent/nolibc.2023.10.12a in the -rcu tree, so
> > > please check the lead-in text for sanity.  (Everything after the digital
> > > signature is automatically generated.)
> > 
> > Looks good. But it's only a listing of the commit subjects, correct?
> 
> Pretty close, just a few added words on the last one.
> 
> So the question is whether there is some larger issue that Linus should
> be made aware of.  If these are just simple fixes for simple bugs,
> we should be good, but yes, I do need to ask.  ;-)

These are simple fixes for simple bugs.

Do you always have to ask specifically or can I just mention it in the
pull request in the future?

> [..]

> > > Ah, and have these been posted to a public mailing list?  If not, then I
> > > need to send them out.
> > 
> > All patches went through the lists as part of the normal developent
> > flow. They were not posted after rebasing.
> 
> I have been sending the group, so I might as well continue the tradition.

Sounds good. If you want me to do something different, please let me
know.

> There are a couple of substantive checkpatch complaints:
> 
> 4b4a30ea14d1 ("tools/nolibc: i386: Fix a stack misalign bug on _start")
> 	The Fixes SHA-1 should be limited to 12 hex digits.
> 	(I am ignoring this, but be prepared for Linus to gripe.
> 	If you decide to fix it, I would be happy to repull.)

Done.

> f2c7923763da ("selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage")
> 	nolibc-test-linkage.c and nolibc-test-linkage.h need
> 	"//" comment for the SPDX comment header.  This one needs
> 	to be fixed, but this is not in the urgent stack, so there
> 	is some time.

nolibc limits itself intentionally to C89 language level which disallows
C++ style headers.

This should be covered by Documentation/process/license-rules.rst:

  If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
  appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.


With that said:

Please pull the changes since the v6.6-rc1 tag from
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git/

The branch 'fixes' up to and including
921992229b1f06df6b649860e4a5f3def1489866 for the v6.6 cycle.

The branch 'next' up to and including
b8c60e8fc6f755c2cdf7164931afdbfa670c6646 for linux-next.

No full test has been performed as only a commit message was changed.

Testing for full nolibc stack:
make run:             162 test(s): 162 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
make run-nolibc-test: 162 test(s): 160 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning


Thomas