linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tools/nolibc: add support for SuperH

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: <20250624060724.GA30919@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:07:24 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.osdn.me>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tools/nolibc: add support for SuperH

Hi Adrian,

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:03:47AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Mon, 2025-06-23 at 23:15 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Add support for SuperH/"sh" to nolibc.
> > Only sh4 is tested for now.
> > 
> > This is only tested on QEMU so far.
> > Additional testing would be very welcome.
> > Test instructions:
> > $ cd tools/testings/selftests/nolibc/
> > $ make -f Makefile.nolibc ARCH=sh CROSS_COMPILE=sh4-linux- nolibc-test
> > $ file nolibc-test
> > nolibc-test: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Renesas SH, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
> > $ ./nolibc-test
> > Running test 'startup'
> > 0 argc = 1                                                        [OK]
> > ...
> > Total number of errors: 0
> > Exiting with status 0
> 
> Apologies, I haven't been able to test this yet as my board currently
> doesn't want to boot kernels newer than v6.5.0 and I have not been able
> to bisect the problem yet.
> 
> Can I test this on v6.5.0 as well?

In theory it should be OK as we try to support oldest supported kernels.

Willy