[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250715062809.GA28609@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:28:09 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: add support for Alpha
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 07:21:38AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 2025-07-13 16:21:58-0600, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 7/13/25 14:08, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > @@ -709,6 +709,10 @@ int run_startup(int min, int max)
> > > /* checking NULL for argv/argv0, environ and _auxv is not enough, let's compare with sbrk(0) or &end */
> > > extern char end;
> > > char *brk = sbrk(0) != (void *)-1 ? sbrk(0) : &end;
> > > +#if defined(__alpha__)
> > > + /* the ordering above does not work on an alpha kernel */
> > > + brk = NULL;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > The syscall api is different for brk on alpha.
> > A change to sys_brk or brk in include/nolibc/sys.h is required.
>
> You are referring to osf_brk, right?
> I think that should work as-is with the current wrappers.
I finally managed to reinstall my DS10 to build and test this and FWIW
the test passes:
$ ./nolibc-test
Running test 'startup'
0 argc = 1 [OK]
1 argv_addr = <0x11fc7b428> [OK]
2 argv_environ = <0x11fc7b428> [OK]
3 argv_total = 1 [OK]
4 argv0_addr = <0x11fc7b665> [OK]
5 argv0_str = <./nolibc-test> [OK]
6 argv0_len = 13 [OK]
7 environ_addr = <0x11fc7b438> [OK]
8 environ_envp = <0x11fc7b438> [OK]
9 environ_auxv = <0x11fc7b438> [OK]
10 environ_total = 175 [OK]
11 environ_HOME = <0x11fc7b6f4> [OK]
12 auxv_addr = <0x11fc7b4e8> [OK]
13 auxv_AT_UID = 509 [OK]
14 constructor = 3 [OK]
15 linkage_errno = <0x1200200f8> [OK]
16 linkage_constr = 3 [OK]
Errors during this test: 0
Running test 'syscall'
0 access = 0 [OK]
1 access_bad = -1 EPERM [OK]
2 clock_getres = 0 [OK]
3 clock_gettime = 0 [OK]
4 clock_settime = -1 EINVAL [OK]
5 getpid = 9201 [OK]
6 getppid = 419 [OK]
7 gettid = 9201 [OK]
8 getpgid_self = 9201 [OK]
9 getpgid_bad = -1 ESRCH [OK]
10 kill_0 = 0 [OK]
11 kill_CONT = 0 [OK]
12 kill_BADPID = -1 ESRCH [OK]
13 sbrk_0 = <0x120024000> [OK]
14 sbrk = 0 [OK]
15 brk = 0 [OK]
(...)
Total number of errors: 0
Exiting with status 0
The result is exactly the same if I comment that line that resets brk,
as brk was apparently already NULL:
13 sbrk_0 = <0x120024000> [OK]
14 sbrk = 0 [OK]
15 brk = 0 [OK]
> On alpha, mm->brk and mm->arg_start are ordered differently from other
> architectures. Personally I think the nolibc tests are a bit bogus here.
I seem to remember that these are among the older minimal consistency
tests and that it could be time to revisit this :-/
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists