On 9 Jul 2025, at 8:32, wang lian wrote:
Hi Zi Yan, Thanks for testing the patch and reporting this build failure. I don't have an arm64 environment readily available for testing, so I appreciate you catching this. I suspect this is caused by missing or older userspace headers in the cross-compilation toolchain.
Right. My /usr/include/sys does not have pidfd.h. IMHO selftests should not rely on userspace headers, otherwise we cannot test latest kernel changes.
I will try to fix this in the next version. If the problem persists, a good solution would be to manually define the syscall wrapper to avoid the dependency on <sys/pidfd.h>.
Based on what I see in other mm tests, the following patch fixes my compilation issue.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/process_madv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/process_madv.c index 3d26105b4781..8bf11433d6e6 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/process_madv.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/process_madv.c @@ -10,13 +10,14 @@ #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/mman.h> +#include <linux/mman.h> #include <sys/syscall.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sched.h> -#include <sys/pidfd.h> +#include <linux/pidfd.h> +#include <linux/uio.h> #include "vm_util.h"
-#include "../pidfd/pidfd.h"
FIXTURE(process_madvise) { @@ -240,7 +241,7 @@ TEST_F(process_madvise, remote_collapse) close(pipe_info[0]); child_pid = info.pid;
- pidfd = pidfd_open(child_pid, 0); + pidfd = syscall(__NR_pidfd_open, child_pid, 0); ASSERT_GE(pidfd, 0);
/* Baseline Check from Parent's perspective */ @@ -312,7 +313,7 @@ TEST_F(process_madvise, invalid_pidfd) if (child_pid == 0) exit(0);
- pidfd = pidfd_open(child_pid, 0); + pidfd = syscall(__NR_pidfd_open, child_pid, 0); ASSERT_GE(pidfd, 0);
/* Wait for the child to ensure it has terminated. */
Best Regards, Yan, Zi