Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:22:58 +0800
From: 邓尧 <>
Subject: Re: Release test framework

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rich Felker <> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:51:42PM +0800, 邓尧 wrote:
> > If busybox is used, the test framework itself would depend  on musl-libc,
> > which means test test framework would depend on the test subject. In
> > theory, it's a bad bad idea.
> >
> > 0.02$
> The busybox used need not even be linked with musl; it could be a
> uclibc-linked binary from aboriginal, for example. The point was not
> to use busybox as any major part of the test framework, just to have a
> shell to run the script that would run all the tests from the
> libc-test package inside qemu.

Extracting test result isn't easy, and creating these initramfs and kernel
images are time consuming. qemu-user may be a better choice, I'm not sure
about the stability of qemu-user though. The following shows qemu-user
could easily run a simple userspace program of a different architecture:

hoolala@...ntu:/tmp$ cat hello.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
    return 1;
hoolala@...ntu:/tmp$ arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc hello.c -static
hoolala@...ntu:/tmp$ qemu-arm ./a.out
hoolala@...ntu:/tmp$ echo $?

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.