Hi Willy, Zhangjin,
On 2023-05-20 20:02:53+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
When compile nolibc-test.c for rv32, we got such error:
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c:599:57: error: ‘__NR_fstat’ undeclared (first use in this function) 599 | CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_fstat, 0, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;The generic include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h used by rv32 doesn't support __NR_fstat, using the common __NR_read functions as expected.
Running test 'syscall' 69 syscall_noargs = 1 [OK] 70 syscall_args = -1 EBADF [OK]Btw, the latest riscv libc6-dev package is required, otherwise, we would also get such error:
In file included from /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/include/sys/cdefs.h:452, from /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/include/features.h:461, from /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/include/bits/libc-header-start.h:33, from /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/include/limits.h:26, from /usr/lib/gcc-cross/riscv64-linux-gnu/9/include/limits.h:194, from /usr/lib/gcc-cross/riscv64-linux-gnu/9/include/syslimits.h:7, from /usr/lib/gcc-cross/riscv64-linux-gnu/9/include/limits.h:34, from /labs/linux-lab/src/linux-stable/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c:6: /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/include/bits/wordsize.h:28:3: error: #error "rv32i-based targets are not supported" 28 | # error "rv32i-based targets are not supported"The glibc commit 5b6113d62efa ("RISC-V: Support the 32-bit ABI implementation") fixed up above error, so, glibc >= 2.33 (who includes this commit) is required.
Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu falcon@tinylab.org
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c index 063f9959ac44..d8b59c8f6c03 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c @@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max) CASE_TEST(write_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, write(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break; CASE_TEST(write_zero); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, write(1, &tmp, 0)); break; CASE_TEST(syscall_noargs); EXPECT_SYSEQ(1, syscall(__NR_getpid), getpid()); break;
CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_fstat, 0, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_read, -1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break;
The goal of this second test was to make sure that arguments are passed in the correct order. For this I tried to have a syscall were the checked error is generated from a non-first argument. (The NULL generating the EFAULT).
So the new check does not fullfil this goal anymore.
Maybe we can find a new syscall to test with?
The code should have had a comment I guess.
case __LINE__: return ret; /* must be last */ /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */-- 2.25.1