From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: test-in-container vs ld.so
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:07:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17f91ec5-b95a-6020-d4ec-17abe598653c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xnsgmzqpwp.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
On 11/7/19 5:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> The glibc test infrastructure goes to great lengths to run test
> programs in the just-built environment, running env and ld.so with
> lots of arguments to get things "just right".
>
> The test-in-container infrastructure goes to... well, less great
> lengths to provide a "correct native" environment for the test
> programs, yet it still runs env and ld.so within the container.
>
> There are a few of our tests that sometimes fail due to kernel address
> space randomization when run under ld.so yet work correctly all the
> time when run directly.
>
> So... should we run containerized tests without ld.so?
>
> I see two discussion points...
>
> 1. Are there tests that *need* the env/ld.so handling within the
> container? (not counting test-specific environment variables, I mean
> the environment variables we pass to *every* test)
I don't think so.
I think everything that test-in-container does should emulate an
installed system.
If we have a *need* to run an ld.so test, that verifies running ld.so
directly works, we can do it outside of the test-in-container
infrastructure.
> 2. how complicated would it be to remove those from the makefile
> rules? Alternatively, I suppose test-container itself could remove
> them, but better not to hide that logic.
test-in-container is already a distinct target. You would have to alter
the dependencies, and likely create a cloned rule that doesn't run ld.so
directly. I don't know how difficult this would be.
I think this is the right directly though. Test in container should not
run ld.so, it should run the binary directly.
You and I discussed this on the list while we were reviewing test-in-container,
but at the time the goal was to get the framework in place and emulating
exactly what the previous framework did except in a container.
The next logical step is to make test-in-container *more* like the installed
tree testing we want it to be.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-08 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-07 22:31 RFC: test-in-container vs ld.so DJ Delorie
2019-11-08 7:27 ` Florian Weimer
2019-11-08 8:05 ` DJ Delorie
2019-11-08 8:25 ` Florian Weimer
2019-11-08 23:54 ` DJ Delorie
2019-11-09 13:24 ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-11-09 14:05 ` Florian Weimer
2019-12-06 4:19 ` DJ Delorie
2019-12-06 20:09 ` DJ Delorie
2019-12-10 19:33 ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-12-10 19:37 ` DJ Delorie
2019-11-08 15:07 ` Carlos O'Donell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17f91ec5-b95a-6020-d4ec-17abe598653c@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=dj@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).