linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: fix sparc32 tests with -mcpu=v9

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: <CAMuHMdVyntSex=O1LX3aWKWc2cr8BBr1hMwV1SWHY5_CvK0sfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 20:34:55 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: fix sparc32 tests with -mcpu=v9

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 19:32, Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net> wrote:
> On 2026-01-06 14:36:23+0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 12:47, Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net> wrote:
> > > On 2026-01-06 12:40:12+0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 at 23:14, Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile.nolibc
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile.nolibc
> > > > > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ DEFCONFIG_riscv32    = rv32_defconfig
> > > > >  DEFCONFIG_riscv64    = defconfig
> > > > >  DEFCONFIG_s390x      = defconfig
> > > > >  DEFCONFIG_loongarch  = defconfig
> > > > > -DEFCONFIG_sparc32    = sparc32_defconfig
> > > > > +DEFCONFIG_sparc32    = sparc64_defconfig
> > > >
> > > > How can we test sparc32 using a 64-bit kernel?
> > >
> > > CONFIG_COMPAT=y
> >
> > FWIW, testing 32-bit userland on a 64-bit kernel is something completely
> > different...
>
> I can't really follow. We are testing the userspace nolibc here and
> assume that the kernel component already works correctly. Whether that
> is a native 32-bit kernel, 64-bit kernel with CONFIG_COMPAT=y or even
> qemu-user-sparc doesn't really matter in my opinion. What am I missing?

Oh sorry, I thought this was part of the actual nolibc implementation
used by the selftests, not a test for nolibc itself.
>
> > > Please note that this changed in (the now committed) v2 anyways:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260106-nolibc-sparc32-fix-v2-1-7c5cd6b175c2@weissschuh.net/
> >
> > Sorry, I hadn't noticed the newer version, as the latter does not
> > include some keywords to trigger my interest ;-)
>
> Now I am left wondering about the specific keyword that triggered on v1
> but not v2 :-)

"m68k"

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds