Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:18:35 -0600 From: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> To: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Skipping tests that are unimplemented in 32-bit emulation Message-ID: <CAOtMX2iiVmYyTMB%2BgtLPYEsFw048-noLPXMzi_cqtwS0HqxRTg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180806191406.GA77150@raichu> References: <CAOtMX2hOtVd=_hGHG=8gAjMLq8cBbra5=JXtPd3dsgR6quRWRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180806191406.GA77150@raichu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:23:33AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > > I recently tried running the i386 test suite in a chroot on an amd64 > > system. 162 tests failed, and 33 were broken. Some of the failures were > > due to system calls that haven't been implemented in 32-bit emulation. > > setfib(2) is an example. I think it's unlikely that anybody will ever > need > > 32-bit emulation for setfib(2), so perhaps we should just skip the test? > > What's the best way to do that? I can come up with two ways: > > > > 1) At runtime, check the hw.machine sysctl and see if it matches some > > compile time preprocessor constant. I don't know what constant to use, > > though. Checking __amd64__ would only work for i386 binaries on amd64 > > kernels, and not something else like mips binaries on mips64 kernels (I > > don't know if we support that, but I don't want to rule it out). > > > > 2) At buildtime, put an "allowed_architectures=i386" metadata property > into > > the Kyuafile for that test program. This would require support in > > /usr/share/mk/bsd.test.mk. It would also require patching Kyua itself, > > because currently "Kyua config" returns the architecture for which it was > > built, not the one on which it's running. > > > > Thoughts? > > I don't have any particular suggestions, but I'd personally rather avoid > a solution that requires tests to opt-in to running under 32-bit > emulation, which I think excludes 2). I'd be happy to help annotate > any failing tests as required. It bugs me that the test suite currently > doesn't cover such relatively complicated functions as > freebsd32_copy_msg_out(). > I don't think that 2 would necessarily be opt-in, because an undefined value for allowed_architectures is interpreted as meaning "all". It could be opt-out instead. But it could still be a little awkward. Option 1 could be accomplished for atf-c testcases by comparing the value of __LP64__ to a hardcoded list of known 64-bit processors as returned by uname(3). But I don't know how to implement 1 for atf-sh programs. An atf-sh program would need to know the architecture of any binary that it might invoke. Is there anything in /etc indicating what architecture the image was built for? Should we just use "file /lib/libc.so.*"?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2iiVmYyTMB%2BgtLPYEsFw048-noLPXMzi_cqtwS0HqxRTg>