Re: [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:26:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:17:33PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:13:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 09:36:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 04:45:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > Hello Paul,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is essentially Thomas' work so instead of paraphrasing his work,
> > > > > I'm pasting his description below. I've tested his changes on all
> > > > > supported archs, applied a tiny modification with his permission
> > > > > to continue to support passing CFLAGS, and for me this is all fine.
> > > > > In a short summary this adds support for stack protector to i386 and
> > > > > x86_64 in nolibc, and the accompanying test to the selftest program.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A new test category was added, "protection", which currently has a
> > > > > single test. Archs that support it will report "OK" there and those
> > > > > that do not will report "SKIPPED", as is already the case for tests
> > > > > that cannot be run.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This was applied on top of your dev.2023.03.20a branch. I'm reasonably
> > > > > confident with the nature of the changes, so if your queue for 6.4 is
> > > > > not closed yet, it can be a good target, otherwise 6.5 will be fine as
> > > > > well.
> > > > 
> > > > I have applied and pushed it out, thank you both!
> > > > 
> > > > We are a little late in the process, but if testing goes well, I can't
> > > > see why this cannot make the v6.4 merge window.
> > > 
> > > And "make run-user" says "124 test(s) passed", which looks promising.
> > 
> > Indeed!
> > 
> > > But "make run" says "0 test(s) passed".
> > > 
> > > (They initially both said "0 test(s) passed", but that was because I
> > > forgot to build qemu-x86_64 after an upgrade.)
> > > 
> > > Please see below for the full output of "make run".  Am I missing
> > > some other package?
> > 
> > Hmmm I think that the output of run.out will be needed here. We'll
> > need to understand whether it fails to boot the kernel or to start
> > the executable.
> 
> Ah, I knew I was forgetting something!
> 
> I am retrying the test after rebasing Thomas's latest series directly
> on top of the rest of the nolibc patches.
> 
> In the meantime, the kernel died as shown below.

Ah "great", that's a good reason. I predicted that one day this test
would detect a kernel bug, we're here now ;-)

Willy