linux-kernel - Re: next-20250909: selftests/arm64/gcs/basic-gcs.c:390:30: error: use of undeclared identifier 'HWCAP

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: <5e4d9943-3a8d-4281-9007-f49bfc66dc6d@weissschuh.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:57:12 +0200 (GMT+02:00)
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
	Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
	Ben Copeland <benjamin.copeland@...aro.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: next-20250909: selftests/arm64/gcs/basic-gcs.c:390:30: error:
 use of undeclared identifier 'HWCAP_GCS'

Sep 12, 2025 12:49:58 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 08:30:08AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> On 2025-09-12 00:48:47+0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>
>> index c99a6b39ac14..816b497634d6 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-util.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-util.h
>> @@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ struct user_gcs {
>> };
>> #endif
>>
>> +#ifndef HWCAP_GCS
>> +#define HWCAP_GCS (1UL << 32)
>> +#endif
>> +
>
> We're doing that for glibc using tests because there's some unfortunate
> interaction between including the relevant kernel header and glibc's
> headers (I forget the details) which means that including the kernel
> header directly conflicts with something glibc is doing.  For nolibc I
> would expect us to using the kernel's hwcap definitions?

nolibc doesn't even have its own asm/hwcap.h (or any asm/ header for that matter).
So a kernel header has to be used,
maybe an old one is pulled from somewhere?

(I won't have access to a development machine today anymore)

Thomas