Skipping tests that are unimplemented in 32-bit emulation

[Alan Somers]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:18:35PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:23:33AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> > > > I recently tried running the i386 test suite in a chroot on an amd64
> > > > system.  162 tests failed, and 33 were broken.  Some of the failures
> were
> > > > due to system calls that haven't been implemented in 32-bit
> emulation.
> > > > setfib(2) is an example.  I think it's unlikely that anybody will
> ever
> > > need
> > > > 32-bit emulation for setfib(2), so perhaps we should just skip the
> test?
> > > > What's the best way to do that?  I can come up with two ways:
> > > >
> > > > 1) At runtime, check the hw.machine sysctl and see if it matches some
> > > > compile time preprocessor constant.  I don't know what constant to
> use,
> > > > though.  Checking __amd64__ would only work for i386 binaries on
> amd64
> > > > kernels, and not something else like mips binaries on mips64 kernels
> (I
> > > > don't know if we support that, but I don't want to rule it out).
> > > >
> > > > 2) At buildtime, put an "allowed_architectures=i386" metadata
> property
> > > into
> > > > the Kyuafile for that test program.  This would require support in
> > > > /usr/share/mk/bsd.test.mk.  It would also require patching Kyua
> itself,
> > > > because currently "Kyua config" returns the architecture for which
> it was
> > > > built, not the one on which it's running.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I don't have any particular suggestions, but I'd personally rather
> avoid
> > > a solution that requires tests to opt-in to running under 32-bit
> > > emulation, which I think excludes 2).  I'd be happy to help annotate
> > > any failing tests as required.  It bugs me that the test suite
> currently
> > > doesn't cover such relatively complicated functions as
> > > freebsd32_copy_msg_out().
> >
> > I don't think that 2 would necessarily be opt-in, because an undefined
> > value for allowed_architectures is interpreted as meaning "all".  It
> could
> > be opt-out instead.  But it could still be a little awkward.  Option 1
> > could be accomplished for atf-c testcases by comparing the value of
> > __LP64__ to a hardcoded list of known 64-bit processors as returned by
> > uname(3).  But I don't know how to implement 1 for atf-sh programs.  An
> > atf-sh program would need to know the architecture of any binary that it
> > might invoke.  Is there anything in /etc indicating what architecture the
> > image was built for?  Should we just use "file /lib/libc.so.*"?
>
> Could we instead build and install a /usr/tests32 suite on systems that
> can support it, and use a top-level Kyuafile and kyua.conf that overrides
> the "architecture" variable?
>

It's not enough to build and install the atf-c tests in 32-bit mode.  We
would need an entire 32-bit chroot in order to run the atf-sh tests in
32-bit mode.