[GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Thomas Weißschuh]

(resend to add missing Cc: LKML)


Hi Paul,

The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:

  Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)

are available in the Git repository at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1

for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:

  selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
nolibc changes for 6.13

Changes
-------

* Fix potential error due to missing #include on s390
* Compatibility with -Wmissing-fallthrough
* Run qemu with more memory during tests

----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weißschuh (3):
      tools/nolibc: s390: include std.h
      tools/nolibc: compiler: add macro __nolibc_fallthrough
      selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory

 tools/include/nolibc/arch-s390.h        | 1 +
 tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h         | 6 ++++++
 tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h            | 3 ++-
 tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 4 ++--
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Test report:

$ ./run-tests.sh
i386:          195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
x86_64:        195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
arm64:         195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
arm:           195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
mips32le:      195 test(s): 194 passed,   1 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
mips32be:      195 test(s): 194 passed,   1 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc:           195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
ppc64:         195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
ppc64le:       195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
riscv:         195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
s390:          195 test(s): 194 passed,   1 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
loongarch:     195 test(s): 194 passed,   1 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning

$ ./run-tests.sh -m user
i386:          195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
x86_64:        195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
arm64:         195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
arm:           195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
mips32le:      195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
mips32be:      195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc:           195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc64:         195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc64le:       195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
riscv:         195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
s390:          195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
loongarch:     195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning

$ ./run-tests.sh -m user -l
i386:          195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
x86_64:        195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
arm64:         195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
arm:           195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
mips32le:      195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
mips32be:      195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc:           195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc64:         195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
ppc64le:       195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
riscv:         195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
s390:          195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
loongarch:     195 test(s): 192 passed,   3 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning


Thanks,
Thomas

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:22:13PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> (resend to add missing Cc: LKML)
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:
> 
>   Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)
> 
> are available in the Git repository at:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:
> 
>   selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)

Thank you!  I have pulled this into -rcu at signed tag nolibc.2024.11.01a,
which copies from your signed tag.

The usual "make run" and "make user" worked fine, but "make libc-test"
gave me the build errors shown below.  Is there some setup step that
I omitted?  Or is this not really a necessary test?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  CC      libc-test
nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
nolibc-test.c:1083:63: warning: argument 1 null where non-null expected [-Wnonnull]
 1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
      |                                                               ^~~~
nolibc-test.c:358:77: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
  358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
      |                                                                             ^~~~
nolibc-test.c:1083:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
 1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
      |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from nolibc-test.c:26:
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/stat.h:205:12: note: in a call to function ‘stat’ declared ‘nonnull’
  205 | extern int stat (const char *__restrict __file,
      |            ^~~~
nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_stdlib’:
nolibc-test.c:1137:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcat’; did you mean ‘strncat’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
 1137 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcat_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcat(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
      |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
  613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
      |                                                                                ^~~~
nolibc-test.c:1143:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcpy’; did you mean ‘strncpy’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
 1143 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcpy_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcpy(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
      |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
  613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
      |                                                                                ^~~~
nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
nolibc-test.c:358:62: warning: argument 1 is null but the corresponding size argument 2 value is 1 [-Wnonnull]
  358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
      |                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nolibc-test.c:361:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
  361 |         EXPECT_SYSER2(cond, expr, expret, experr, 0)
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
nolibc-test.c:1073:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
 1073 |                 CASE_TEST(poll_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, poll(NULL, 1, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
      |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /usr/include/poll.h:1,
                 from nolibc-test.c:35:
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/poll.h:54:12: note: in a call to function ‘poll’ declared with attribute ‘access (write_only, 1, 2)’
   54 | extern int poll (struct pollfd *__fds, nfds_t __nfds, int __timeout)
      |            ^~~~
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x44f9): undefined reference to `strlcat'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4580): undefined reference to `strlcat'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4607): undefined reference to `strlcat'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x468e): undefined reference to `strlcat'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4715): undefined reference to `strlcat'
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o:nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x479c): more undefined references to `strlcat' follow
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4823): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x48aa): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4931): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x49b8): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
/usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4a3f): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [Makefile:230: libc-test] Error 1

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Thomas Weißschuh]

Hi Paul,

On 2024-11-01 13:22:17-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:22:13PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > (resend to add missing Cc: LKML)
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:
> > 
> >   Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)
> > 
> > are available in the Git repository at:
> > 
> >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1
> > 
> > for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:
> > 
> >   selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)
> 
> Thank you!  I have pulled this into -rcu at signed tag nolibc.2024.11.01a,
> which copies from your signed tag.

Thanks!

> The usual "make run" and "make user" worked fine, but "make libc-test"
> gave me the build errors shown below.  Is there some setup step that
> I omitted?  Or is this not really a necessary test?

That test does not actually test nolibc but the nolibc test suite.
It uses your system libc and makes sure that the nolibc test
expectations match the behaviour of a "real" libc.
The missing strlcat() function was added to glibc only in 2.38, so I
guess you have an older version.
On my glibc 2.40 "make libc-test" works and the test itself succeeds.

I'll see if there is a reasonable to make libc-test work on older glibc.
But it shouldn't impact this cycle.

For better architecture coverage I would recommend ./run-tests.sh over
"make run/user". Speaking about this I remember the discussion from the
6.12 PR where Willy proposed an improved run-tests.sh error message.
It seems he didn't push it as a commit, so let's add keep it in mind for
next cycle.

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   CC      libc-test
> nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
> nolibc-test.c:1083:63: warning: argument 1 null where non-null expected [-Wnonnull]
>  1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
>       |                                                               ^~~~
> nolibc-test.c:358:77: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
>   358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
>       |                                                                             ^~~~
> nolibc-test.c:1083:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
>  1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
>       |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from nolibc-test.c:26:
> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/stat.h:205:12: note: in a call to function ‘stat’ declared ‘nonnull’
>   205 | extern int stat (const char *__restrict __file,
>       |            ^~~~
> nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_stdlib’:
> nolibc-test.c:1137:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcat’; did you mean ‘strncat’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>  1137 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcat_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcat(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
>       |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
> nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
>   613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
>       |                                                                                ^~~~
> nolibc-test.c:1143:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcpy’; did you mean ‘strncpy’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>  1143 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcpy_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcpy(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
>       |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
> nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
>   613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
>       |                                                                                ^~~~
> nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
> nolibc-test.c:358:62: warning: argument 1 is null but the corresponding size argument 2 value is 1 [-Wnonnull]
>   358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
>       |                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> nolibc-test.c:361:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
>   361 |         EXPECT_SYSER2(cond, expr, expret, experr, 0)
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> nolibc-test.c:1073:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
>  1073 |                 CASE_TEST(poll_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, poll(NULL, 1, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
>       |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from /usr/include/poll.h:1,
>                  from nolibc-test.c:35:
> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/poll.h:54:12: note: in a call to function ‘poll’ declared with attribute ‘access (write_only, 1, 2)’
>    54 | extern int poll (struct pollfd *__fds, nfds_t __nfds, int __timeout)
>       |            ^~~~
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
> nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x44f9): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4580): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4607): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x468e): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4715): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o:nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x479c): more undefined references to `strlcat' follow
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
> nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4823): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x48aa): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4931): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x49b8): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4a3f): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> make: *** [Makefile:230: libc-test] Error 1

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Thomas, hi Paul,

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:23:48PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 2024-11-01 13:22:17-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:22:13PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > (resend to add missing Cc: LKML)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:
> > > 
> > >   Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)
> > > 
> > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:
> > > 
> > >   selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)
> > 
> > Thank you!  I have pulled this into -rcu at signed tag nolibc.2024.11.01a,
> > which copies from your signed tag.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > The usual "make run" and "make user" worked fine, but "make libc-test"
> > gave me the build errors shown below.  Is there some setup step that
> > I omitted?  Or is this not really a necessary test?
> 
> That test does not actually test nolibc but the nolibc test suite.
> It uses your system libc and makes sure that the nolibc test
> expectations match the behaviour of a "real" libc.
> The missing strlcat() function was added to glibc only in 2.38, so I
> guess you have an older version.
> On my glibc 2.40 "make libc-test" works and the test itself succeeds.
> 
> I'll see if there is a reasonable to make libc-test work on older glibc.
> But it shouldn't impact this cycle.

Maybe we could just enclose the test with:

#if !defined(__GLIBC__) || __GLIBC__ > 2 || __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 40
 ...
#endif

The real libc test is indeed not critical but it's important that we try
to keep it working reasonably well over the long term as it reminds us
not to diverge too much.

> For better architecture coverage I would recommend ./run-tests.sh over
> "make run/user". Speaking about this I remember the discussion from the
> 6.12 PR where Willy proposed an improved run-tests.sh error message.
> It seems he didn't push it as a commit, so let's add keep it in mind for
> next cycle.

Oups, I vaguely remember proposing a trivial patch in an e-mail a while
ago but I don't even remember what it was about. My mind is totally taken
by the upcoming haproxy release these days :-/

Cheers,
Willy

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Thomas Weißschuh]

Hi Willy,

On 2024-11-01 22:33:14+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:23:48PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > On 2024-11-01 13:22:17-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:22:13PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > (resend to add missing Cc: LKML)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > 
> > > > The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:
> > > > 
> > > >   Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)
> > > > 
> > > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > > 
> > > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1
> > > > 
> > > > for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:
> > > > 
> > > >   selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)
> > > 
> > > Thank you!  I have pulled this into -rcu at signed tag nolibc.2024.11.01a,
> > > which copies from your signed tag.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > > The usual "make run" and "make user" worked fine, but "make libc-test"
> > > gave me the build errors shown below.  Is there some setup step that
> > > I omitted?  Or is this not really a necessary test?
> > 
> > That test does not actually test nolibc but the nolibc test suite.
> > It uses your system libc and makes sure that the nolibc test
> > expectations match the behaviour of a "real" libc.
> > The missing strlcat() function was added to glibc only in 2.38, so I
> > guess you have an older version.
> > On my glibc 2.40 "make libc-test" works and the test itself succeeds.
> > 
> > I'll see if there is a reasonable to make libc-test work on older glibc.
> > But it shouldn't impact this cycle.
> 
> Maybe we could just enclose the test with:
> 
> #if !defined(__GLIBC__) || __GLIBC__ > 2 || __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 40
>  ...
> #endif

This will mess up the test case numbers.
The test is actually only running on nolibc anyways, so we could also
stub out strlcat() with a dummy inline function.

> The real libc test is indeed not critical but it's important that we try
> to keep it working reasonably well over the long term as it reminds us
> not to diverge too much.

Agreed.

> > For better architecture coverage I would recommend ./run-tests.sh over
> > "make run/user". Speaking about this I remember the discussion from the
> > 6.12 PR where Willy proposed an improved run-tests.sh error message.
> > It seems he didn't push it as a commit, so let's add keep it in mind for
> > next cycle.
> 
> Oups, I vaguely remember proposing a trivial patch in an e-mail a while
> ago but I don't even remember what it was about. My mind is totally taken
> by the upcoming haproxy release these days :-/

It's at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZtlQbpgpn9OQOPyI@1wt.eu/
No worries, I'll pick it up after 6.13-rc1.


Thomas

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Willy Tarreau]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:40:34PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Maybe we could just enclose the test with:
> > 
> > #if !defined(__GLIBC__) || __GLIBC__ > 2 || __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 40
> >  ...
> > #endif
> 
> This will mess up the test case numbers.
> The test is actually only running on nolibc anyways, so we could also
> stub out strlcat() with a dummy inline function.

OK.

> > > For better architecture coverage I would recommend ./run-tests.sh over
> > > "make run/user". Speaking about this I remember the discussion from the
> > > 6.12 PR where Willy proposed an improved run-tests.sh error message.
> > > It seems he didn't push it as a commit, so let's add keep it in mind for
> > > next cycle.
> > 
> > Oups, I vaguely remember proposing a trivial patch in an e-mail a while
> > ago but I don't even remember what it was about. My mind is totally taken
> > by the upcoming haproxy release these days :-/
> 
> It's at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZtlQbpgpn9OQOPyI@1wt.eu/
> No worries, I'll pick it up after 6.13-rc1.

Ah, I found it, it reminded me something, because usually I forget about
patches once I commit them! I had pushed it to the next branch by then:

  commit 6fc1d365c7394790cf7073a4acfcbf7fe4e8eff9 (HEAD -> 20240908-nolibc-next, korg-nolibc-git/next)
  Author: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
  Date:   Sun Sep 8 12:00:12 2024 +0200

    selftests/nolibc: run-tests.sh: detect missing toolchain
    
    The script tries to resolve the path to the current toolchain using
    realpath, which fails in case it's not installed, and since it's run
    under -e, it doesn't have the opportunity to display a help message.
    Let's detect the absence of the required toolchain before running that
    command and provide a friendlier message when this happens.
    
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZtlQbpgpn9OQOPyI@1wt.eu/
    Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

Seems like we messed up with a forced push to next at some point :-)

I rebased it on the current next and pushed it again:

    648da1b274cf85fff5fe60914ae6a402013f456c

Cheers,
Willy

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:23:48PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 2024-11-01 13:22:17-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:22:13PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > (resend to add missing Cc: LKML)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > The following changes since commit 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc:
> > > 
> > >   Linux 6.12-rc1 (2024-09-29 15:06:19 -0700)
> > > 
> > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20241101-for-6.13-1
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3:
> > > 
> > >   selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)
> > 
> > Thank you!  I have pulled this into -rcu at signed tag nolibc.2024.11.01a,
> > which copies from your signed tag.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > The usual "make run" and "make user" worked fine, but "make libc-test"
> > gave me the build errors shown below.  Is there some setup step that
> > I omitted?  Or is this not really a necessary test?
> 
> That test does not actually test nolibc but the nolibc test suite.
> It uses your system libc and makes sure that the nolibc test
> expectations match the behaviour of a "real" libc.
> The missing strlcat() function was added to glibc only in 2.38, so I
> guess you have an older version.
> On my glibc 2.40 "make libc-test" works and the test itself succeeds.
> 
> I'll see if there is a reasonable to make libc-test work on older glibc.
> But it shouldn't impact this cycle.

I expect I will be upgrading at some point, so this might not be worth
worrying about unless others are also running into it.

> For better architecture coverage I would recommend ./run-tests.sh over
> "make run/user". Speaking about this I remember the discussion from the
> 6.12 PR where Willy proposed an improved run-tests.sh error message.
> It seems he didn't push it as a commit, so let's add keep it in mind for
> next cycle.

Makes sense to me!

							Thanx, Paul

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >   CC      libc-test
> > nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
> > nolibc-test.c:1083:63: warning: argument 1 null where non-null expected [-Wnonnull]
> >  1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
> >       |                                                               ^~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:358:77: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
> >   358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
> >       |                                                                             ^~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:1083:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
> >  1083 |                 CASE_TEST(stat_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
> >       |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from nolibc-test.c:26:
> > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/stat.h:205:12: note: in a call to function ‘stat’ declared ‘nonnull’
> >   205 | extern int stat (const char *__restrict __file,
> >       |            ^~~~
> > nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_stdlib’:
> > nolibc-test.c:1137:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcat’; did you mean ‘strncat’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >  1137 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcat_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcat(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
> >       |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
> >   613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
> >       |                                                                                ^~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:1143:75: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcpy’; did you mean ‘strncpy’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >  1143 |                 CASE_TEST(strlcpy_0);          EXPECT_STRBUFEQ(is_nolibc, strlcpy(buf, "bar", 0), buf, 3, "test"); break;
> >       |                                                                           ^~~~~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:613:80: note: in definition of macro ‘EXPECT_STRBUFEQ’
> >   613 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_str_buf_eq(expr, buf, val, llen, cmp); } while (0)
> >       |                                                                                ^~~~
> > nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
> > nolibc-test.c:358:62: warning: argument 1 is null but the corresponding size argument 2 value is 1 [-Wnonnull]
> >   358 |         do { if (!(cond)) result(llen, SKIPPED); else ret += expect_syserr2(expr, expret, experr1, experr2, llen); } while (0)
> >       |                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:361:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER2’
> >   361 |         EXPECT_SYSER2(cond, expr, expret, experr, 0)
> >       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > nolibc-test.c:1073:47: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXPECT_SYSER’
> >  1073 |                 CASE_TEST(poll_fault);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, poll(NULL, 1, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
> >       |                                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from /usr/include/poll.h:1,
> >                  from nolibc-test.c:35:
> > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/poll.h:54:12: note: in a call to function ‘poll’ declared with attribute ‘access (write_only, 1, 2)’
> >    54 | extern int poll (struct pollfd *__fds, nfds_t __nfds, int __timeout)
> >       |            ^~~~
> > /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
> > nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x44f9): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4580): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4607): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x468e): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4715): undefined reference to `strlcat'
> > /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o:nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x479c): more undefined references to `strlcat' follow
> > /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvUtmw4.o: in function `run_stdlib':
> > nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4823): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x48aa): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4931): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x49b8): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> > /usr/bin/ld: nolibc-test.c:(.text+0x4a3f): undefined reference to `strlcpy'
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> > make: *** [Makefile:230: libc-test] Error 1

[GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[Paul E. McKenney]

Hello, Linus,

Once the v6.13 merge window opens, please pull the latest nolibc
changes from:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git tags/nolibc.2024.11.01a
  # HEAD: ad0558f3883130954ca724697f2d19aef93967b3: selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory (2024-10-07 21:57:45 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
nolibc changes for 6.13

Changes
-------

* Fix potential error due to missing #include on s390
* Compatibility with -Wmissing-fallthrough
* Run qemu with more memory during tests

----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weißschuh (3):
      tools/nolibc: s390: include std.h
      tools/nolibc: compiler: add macro __nolibc_fallthrough
      selftests/nolibc: start qemu with 1 GiB of memory

 tools/include/nolibc/arch-s390.h        | 1 +
 tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h         | 6 ++++++
 tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h            | 3 ++-
 tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 4 ++--
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v6.13

[pr-tracker-bot]

The pull request you sent on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 10:40:50 -0800:

> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git tags/nolibc.2024.11.01a

has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/26c9fdd6f3a4ab6c49500b6bb0fdd0a87c63932d

Thank you!

-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/prtracker.html