linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] A new selftests/ directory for arm compatibility testing

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: <78f5ee9a-084f-4a8a-9a22-be031f9baafa@collabora.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:55:07 +0500
From: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Anshuman.Khandual@....com,
 suzuki.poulose@....com, ryan.roberts@....com, rob.herring@....com,
 Catalin.Marinas@....com, broonie@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 linux@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] A new selftests/ directory for arm compatibility
 testing

On 4/22/24 10:21 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:37:13PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> This series introduces the selftests/arm directory, which tests 32 and 64-bit
>> kernel compatibility with 32-bit ELFs running on the Aarch platform.
>> The need for this bucket of tests is that 32 bit applications built on legacy
>> ARM architecture must not break on the new Aarch64 platforms and the 64-bit
>> kernel. The kernel must emulate the data structures, system calls and the
>> registers according to Aarch32, when running a 32-bit process; this directory
>> fills that testing requirement.
>>
>> One may find similarity between this directory and selftests/arm64; it is
>> advisable to refer to that since a lot has been copied from there itself.
> 
> Isn't this going to be difficult to maintain if we have two divergent copies
> of the same stuff? From a very quick skim, a bunch of the signals stuff is
> idential to what we have on arm64...
Agreed.

Why don't we follow what x86 suite has been doing? Compile tests for both
arm and arm64, and add conditionals in the tests based on architecture.

If someone has objection that the suite name is arm64, just rename it to
arm which would be a generic name.


> 
> Will
> 

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum