linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] selftests/nolibc: always keep test kernel configuration up to date

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250122221411.GA6099@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 23:14:11 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] selftests/nolibc: always keep test kernel
 configuration up to date

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 08:00:28PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Willy!
> 
> On 2025-01-22 19:52:06+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 07:41:48PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > @@ -173,7 +170,7 @@ test_arch() {
> > >  			exit 1
> > >  	esac
> > >  	printf '%-15s' "$arch:"
> > > -	swallow_output "${MAKE[@]}" CFLAGS_EXTRA="$CFLAGS_EXTRA" "$test_target" V=1
> > > +	swallow_output "${MAKE[@]}" CFLAGS_EXTRA="$CFLAGS_EXTRA" defconfig "$test_target" V=1
> > 
> > Just a question, are you certain that dependencies between $test_target
> > and defconfig are always properly handled ? I'm asking because "make -j"
> > is something valid, and we wouldn't want defconfig to run in parallel
> > with test_target.
> 
> "make -j" is not only valid but used by run-tests.sh always.
> The sequencing is explicitly enforced in patch 4.

I learned something today, I didn't know about order-only rules.

> > For real sequencing (and making sure targets run in the
> > correct order), I normally prefer to run them one at a time. Here you could
> > simply prepend the defconfig line before the original one and get these
> > guarantees (and also make them explicit). That's also less edit when
> > copy-pasting from the terminal to the shell when trying to debug.
> 
> Sounds fine to me, too.
> That would remove the need for patch 4, but I'd like to keep it anyways.

Agreed!

Willy