| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest/arm64: build BTI tests in output directory The arm64 BTI selftests are currently built in the source directory, then the generated binaries are copied to the output directory. This leaves the object files around in a potentially otherwise pristine source tree, tainting it for out-of-tree kernel builds. Prepend $(OUTPUT) to every reference to an object file in the Makefile, and remove the extra handling and copying. This puts all generated files under the output directory. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230815145931.2522557-1-andre.przywara@arm.com Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> | 2 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest/arm64: Use the tools/include compiler.h rather than our own The BTI test program started life as standalone programs outside the kselftest suite so provided it's own compiler.h. Now that we have updated the tools/include compiler.h to have all the definitions that we are using and the arm64 selftsets pull in tools/includes let's drop our custom version. __unreachable() is named unreachable() there requiring an update in the code. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728-arm64-signal-memcpy-fix-v4-6-0c1290db5d46@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> | 2 年前 | |
kselftest/arm64: Use the tools/include compiler.h rather than our own The BTI test program started life as standalone programs outside the kselftest suite so provided it's own compiler.h. Now that we have updated the tools/include compiler.h to have all the definitions that we are using and the arm64 selftsets pull in tools/includes let's drop our custom version. __unreachable() is named unreachable() there requiring an update in the code. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728-arm64-signal-memcpy-fix-v4-6-0c1290db5d46@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> | 2 年前 | |
kselftest/arm64: Use the tools/include compiler.h rather than our own The BTI test program started life as standalone programs outside the kselftest suite so provided it's own compiler.h. Now that we have updated the tools/include compiler.h to have all the definitions that we are using and the arm64 selftsets pull in tools/includes let's drop our custom version. __unreachable() is named unreachable() there requiring an update in the code. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728-arm64-signal-memcpy-fix-v4-6-0c1290db5d46@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> | 2 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 | |
kselftest: arm64: Add BTI tests Add some tests that verify that BTI functions correctly for static binaries built with and without BTI support, verifying that SIGILL is generated when expected and is not generated in other situations. Since BTI support is still being rolled out in distributions these tests are built entirely free standing, no libc support is used at all so none of the standard helper functions for kselftest can be used and we open code everything. This also means we aren't testing the kernel support for the dynamic linker, though the test program can be readily adapted for that once it becomes something that we can reliably build and run. These tests were originally written by Dave Martin, I've adapted them for kselftest, mainly around the build system and the output format. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210309193731.57247-1-broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> | 5 年前 |
| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
| 5 年前 | ||
| 2 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 2 年前 | ||
| 2 年前 | ||
| 2 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 |