linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX from LTP

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: <6fd9dcfa-b412-4573-a2c7-e4ded89bb225@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:34:35 +0100
From: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@...e.com>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
 Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>, Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@...aro.org>,
 linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
 Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX from LTP

Hi!

My 2 cents. I'm working on refactoring growfiles test which uses UCLINUX 
flag.
During its development I had occasion to check UCLINUX support and 
(indeed) it seems pretty
broken for LTP, because nobody is maintaining it for a while and such 
tests use old API that will
be replaced in any case sooner or later. I agree with other people about 
removing it, unless there's
a valid reason to keep it.
Just in case we want to keep it, someone should take care about UCLINUX 
support, testing LTP releases for it as well, but it doesn't seem like 
something we can do inside the LTP devs team due to the lack of resources.

Regards,
Andrea

On 1/5/24 04:52, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 1/3/24 06:09, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
>> Hi!
>>> I am not sure I agree with this series.
>>> Removing support for UCLINUX from LTP is almost a guarantee for
>>> not noticing when more breakage is introduced.
>>>
>>> How exactly is UCLINUX broken in LTP?
>> As far as we know noone is using it and nobody is maintaing it for a
>> decade,
> Nobody is maintaining "uclinux" because that was a distro, but you can build
> nommu support in buildroot and such, and people do.
>
> Rob