Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:08:39 -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: <CAOtMX2h_aXDDU%2B7LBTPFPQnO=DTN890wXX1sMQfBdfzbc9ntww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180807150349.GF77150@raichu> References: <CAOtMX2hOtVd=_hGHG=8gAjMLq8cBbra5=JXtPd3dsgR6quRWRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180806191406.GA77150@raichu> <CAOtMX2iiVmYyTMB%2BgtLPYEsFw048-noLPXMzi_cqtwS0HqxRTg@mail.gmail.com> <20180807150349.GF77150@raichu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:18:35PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > > 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.*"? > > Could we instead build and install a /usr/tests32 suite on systems that > can support it, and use a top-level Kyuafile and kyua.conf that overrides > the "architecture" variable? > It's not enough to build and install the atf-c tests in 32-bit mode. We would need an entire 32-bit chroot in order to run the atf-sh tests in 32-bit mode.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2h_aXDDU%2B7LBTPFPQnO=DTN890wXX1sMQfBdfzbc9ntww>