| Message ID | 20250303215240.work.379-kees@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kbuild: clang: Support building UM with SUBARCH=i386 | expand |
On 2025-03-03 13:52:41-0800, Kees Cook wrote: > The UM builds distinguish i386 from x86_64 via SUBARCH, but we don't > support building i386 directly with Clang. To make SUBARCH work for > i386 UM, we need to explicitly test for it. > > This lets me run i386 KUnit tests with Clang: > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ > --make_options LLVM=1 \ > --make_options SUBARCH=i386 > ... > > Fixes: c7500c1b53bf ("um: Allow builds with Clang") > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> > --- > I could not find a cleaner way to do this without hardcoding a test > for i386 UM. Does anyone see a more sane way to accomplish this? The > comment above the CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS seems like it can't be done with > UM's Makefile... This seems to work for me: diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang index 2435efae67f5..8e349bf30fa8 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_i386 := i386-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) This is also what exists in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk. Minus the missing CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang x86_32 and a failure of overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test (clang 19.1.7). > Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Cc: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com> > Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> > Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu> > Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev > Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org > --- > scripts/Makefile.clang | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang > index 2435efae67f5..fa6f9a9be4ac 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang > @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu > +ifeq ($(SRCARCH):$(SUBARCH),um:i386) > +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := i386-linux-gnu > +else > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) > +endif > > ifeq ($(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS),) > $(error add '--target=' option to scripts/Makefile.clang) > -- > 2.34.1 >
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:29:58PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2025-03-03 13:52:41-0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > The UM builds distinguish i386 from x86_64 via SUBARCH, but we don't > > support building i386 directly with Clang. To make SUBARCH work for > > i386 UM, we need to explicitly test for it. > > > > This lets me run i386 KUnit tests with Clang: > > > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ > > --make_options LLVM=1 \ > > --make_options SUBARCH=i386 > > ... > > > > Fixes: c7500c1b53bf ("um: Allow builds with Clang") > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> > > --- > > I could not find a cleaner way to do this without hardcoding a test > > for i386 UM. Does anyone see a more sane way to accomplish this? The > > comment above the CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS seems like it can't be done with > > UM's Makefile... > > This seems to work for me: > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang > index 2435efae67f5..8e349bf30fa8 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu > +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_i386 := i386-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) Yeah, I think I prefer this. As the comment at the top of this file notes, we normally want '-m32' and '-m64' to control the word size, which happens for regular x86 but not UML. Since UML is already weird here, I think going this route for simplicity rather than consistency is not that big of a deal. I would probably add a comment it is only there for ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386 though just so we do not accidentally remove it. > This is also what exists in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk. > Minus the missing CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang x86_32 > and a failure of overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test (clang 19.1.7). Does Kees's other patch resolve the second issue? It'll obviously fix the first :P https://lore.kernel.org/20250303214929.work.499-kees@kernel.org/ > > Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > > Cc: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com> > > Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> > > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> > > Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu> > > Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev > > Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > scripts/Makefile.clang | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang > > index 2435efae67f5..fa6f9a9be4ac 100644 > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang > > @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu > > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu > > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu > > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu > > +ifeq ($(SRCARCH):$(SUBARCH),um:i386) > > +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := i386-linux-gnu > > +else > > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) > > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) > > +endif > > > > ifeq ($(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS),) > > $(error add '--target=' option to scripts/Makefile.clang) > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > >
On 2025-03-04 11:25:36+0100, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:29:58PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > On 2025-03-03 13:52:41-0800, Kees Cook wrote: <snip> > > This is also what exists in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk. > > Minus the missing CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang x86_32 > > and a failure of overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test (clang 19.1.7). > > Does Kees's other patch resolve the second issue? It'll obviously fix > the first :P > > https://lore.kernel.org/20250303214929.work.499-kees@kernel.org/ No, it doesn't. Running tests with: $ .kunit/linux kunit.filter_glob=overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt [15:48:30] =================== overflow (1 subtest) =================== [15:48:30] # DEFINE_FLEX_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/overflow_kunit.c:1200 [15:48:30] Expected __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == expected_raw_size, but [15:48:30] __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == 12 (0xc) [15:48:30] expected_raw_size == 8 (0x8) [15:48:30] [FAILED] DEFINE_FLEX_test [15:48:30] # module: overflow_kunit [15:48:30] ==================== [FAILED] overflow ===================== [15:48:30] ============================================================ [15:48:30] Testing complete. Ran 1 tests: failed: 1 [15:48:31] Elapsed time: 43.985s total, 0.001s configuring, 43.818s building, 0.133s running If I force CONFIG_CC_HAS_COUNTED_BY=n then the test succeeds. Clang 19.1.7 from the Arch Linux repos. <snip>
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2025-03-04 11:25:36+0100, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:29:58PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > On 2025-03-03 13:52:41-0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > <snip> > > > > This is also what exists in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk. > > > Minus the missing CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang x86_32 > > > and a failure of overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test (clang 19.1.7). > > > > Does Kees's other patch resolve the second issue? It'll obviously fix > > the first :P > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/20250303214929.work.499-kees@kernel.org/ > > No, it doesn't. > > Running tests with: > $ .kunit/linux kunit.filter_glob=overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt > [15:48:30] =================== overflow (1 subtest) =================== > [15:48:30] # DEFINE_FLEX_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/overflow_kunit.c:1200 > [15:48:30] Expected __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == expected_raw_size, but > [15:48:30] __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == 12 (0xc) > [15:48:30] expected_raw_size == 8 (0x8) > [15:48:30] [FAILED] DEFINE_FLEX_test > [15:48:30] # module: overflow_kunit > [15:48:30] ==================== [FAILED] overflow ===================== > [15:48:30] ============================================================ > [15:48:30] Testing complete. Ran 1 tests: failed: 1 > [15:48:31] Elapsed time: 43.985s total, 0.001s configuring, 43.818s building, 0.133s running > > If I force CONFIG_CC_HAS_COUNTED_BY=n then the test succeeds. > Clang 19.1.7 from the Arch Linux repos. I wasn't seeing with Clang 20 from git: ClangBuiltLinux clang version 20.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git 72901fe19eb1e55d0ee1c380ab7a9f57d2f187c5) But I do see the error with ToT Clang: ClangBuiltLinux clang version 21.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git eee3db5421040cfc3eae6e92ed714650a6f741fa) Clang 17.1: (does not support counted_by) # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 Clang 19.1.1: (actually is _does_ support counted_by, but Linux disables it) # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 GCC 13.3: # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 Clang 21 (ToT): # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 GCC 15 (ToT): # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 It seems like the on-stack sizes with __bdos all agree now, regardless of the used compiler features. It is only the array size calculation that now gets masked by counted_by. (i.e. the stack size is overridden by the zero "count" for the array elements.) I'll send a fix for the test...
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:07:57AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > No, it doesn't. > > > > Running tests with: > > $ .kunit/linux kunit.filter_glob=overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt > > [15:48:30] =================== overflow (1 subtest) =================== > > [15:48:30] # DEFINE_FLEX_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/overflow_kunit.c:1200 > > [15:48:30] Expected __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == expected_raw_size, but > > [15:48:30] __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == 12 (0xc) > > [15:48:30] expected_raw_size == 8 (0x8) > > [15:48:30] [FAILED] DEFINE_FLEX_test > > [15:48:30] # module: overflow_kunit > > [15:48:30] ==================== [FAILED] overflow ===================== > > [15:48:30] ============================================================ > > [15:48:30] Testing complete. Ran 1 tests: failed: 1 > > [15:48:31] Elapsed time: 43.985s total, 0.001s configuring, 43.818s building, 0.133s running > > > > If I force CONFIG_CC_HAS_COUNTED_BY=n then the test succeeds. > > Clang 19.1.7 from the Arch Linux repos. > > I wasn't seeing with Clang 20 from git: > ClangBuiltLinux clang version 20.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git 72901fe19eb1e55d0ee1c380ab7a9f57d2f187c5) > > But I do see the error with ToT Clang: > ClangBuiltLinux clang version 21.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git eee3db5421040cfc3eae6e92ed714650a6f741fa) > > Clang 17.1: (does not support counted_by) > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > Clang 19.1.1: (actually is _does_ support counted_by, but Linux disables it) > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > GCC 13.3: > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > Clang 21 (ToT): > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 > > GCC 15 (ToT): > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 > > It seems like the on-stack sizes with __bdos all agree now, regardless > of the used compiler features. It is only the array size calculation > that now gets masked by counted_by. (i.e. the stack size is overridden > by the zero "count" for the array elements.) > > I'll send a fix for the test... Just for my own understanding, is this because of the adjustment that Bill did to the __bdos() calculation in [1]? I think that tracks because the version of LLVM 20 that you have is pretty old and does not have that change. I know for a fact I tested the original change to the overflow KUnit test to adjust the expected calculation result and it passed but it was before that change as well. If I use a current version of LLVM 20, I see the failure. If I allow LLVM 18 to use __counted_by(), the test passes with it. Not that it truly matters but it does explain how we got to this point. [1]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8c62bf54df76e37d0978f4901c6be6554e978b53 Cheers, Nathan
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:45:54PM +0100, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:07:57AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > > > Running tests with: > > > $ .kunit/linux kunit.filter_glob=overflow.DEFINE_FLEX_test kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt > > > [15:48:30] =================== overflow (1 subtest) =================== > > > [15:48:30] # DEFINE_FLEX_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/overflow_kunit.c:1200 > > > [15:48:30] Expected __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == expected_raw_size, but > > > [15:48:30] __builtin_dynamic_object_size(two_but_zero, 0) == 12 (0xc) > > > [15:48:30] expected_raw_size == 8 (0x8) > > > [15:48:30] [FAILED] DEFINE_FLEX_test > > > [15:48:30] # module: overflow_kunit > > > [15:48:30] ==================== [FAILED] overflow ===================== > > > [15:48:30] ============================================================ > > > [15:48:30] Testing complete. Ran 1 tests: failed: 1 > > > [15:48:31] Elapsed time: 43.985s total, 0.001s configuring, 43.818s building, 0.133s running > > > > > > If I force CONFIG_CC_HAS_COUNTED_BY=n then the test succeeds. > > > Clang 19.1.7 from the Arch Linux repos. > > > > I wasn't seeing with Clang 20 from git: > > ClangBuiltLinux clang version 20.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git 72901fe19eb1e55d0ee1c380ab7a9f57d2f187c5) > > > > But I do see the error with ToT Clang: > > ClangBuiltLinux clang version 21.0.0git (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git eee3db5421040cfc3eae6e92ed714650a6f741fa) > > > > Clang 17.1: (does not support counted_by) > > > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > > > Clang 19.1.1: (actually is _does_ support counted_by, but Linux disables it) > > > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > > > GCC 13.3: > > > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: missing counted_by > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 4 > > > > Clang 21 (ToT): > > > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 > > > > GCC 15 (ToT): > > > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: has counted_by > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: sizeof(two_but_zero): 8 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __struct_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero): 12 > > # DEFINE_FLEX_test: __member_size(two_but_zero->array): 0 > > > > It seems like the on-stack sizes with __bdos all agree now, regardless > > of the used compiler features. It is only the array size calculation > > that now gets masked by counted_by. (i.e. the stack size is overridden > > by the zero "count" for the array elements.) > > > > I'll send a fix for the test... > > Just for my own understanding, is this because of the adjustment that > Bill did to the __bdos() calculation in [1]? I think that tracks because > the version of LLVM 20 that you have is pretty old and does not have > that change. I know for a fact I tested the original change to the > overflow KUnit test to adjust the expected calculation result and it > passed but it was before that change as well. If I use a current version > of LLVM 20, I see the failure. If I allow LLVM 18 to use __counted_by(), > the test passes with it. Not that it truly matters but it does explain > how we got to this point. Yes, totally! This is exactly how I got there too. Great; thank you for summarizing! :)
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang index 2435efae67f5..fa6f9a9be4ac 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu +ifeq ($(SRCARCH):$(SUBARCH),um:i386) +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := i386-linux-gnu +else CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) +endif ifeq ($(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS),) $(error add '--target=' option to scripts/Makefile.clang)
The UM builds distinguish i386 from x86_64 via SUBARCH, but we don't support building i386 directly with Clang. To make SUBARCH work for i386 UM, we need to explicitly test for it. This lets me run i386 KUnit tests with Clang: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ --make_options LLVM=1 \ --make_options SUBARCH=i386 ... Fixes: c7500c1b53bf ("um: Allow builds with Clang") Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> --- I could not find a cleaner way to do this without hardcoding a test for i386 UM. Does anyone see a more sane way to accomplish this? The comment above the CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS seems like it can't be done with UM's Makefile... Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com> Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu> Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org --- scripts/Makefile.clang | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)