Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-182638-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 14:27:35 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] selftests: harness: refactor __constructor_order
Message-ID: <202405171426.B1ED9AD@keescook>
References: <20240517114506.1259203-1-masahiroy@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240517114506.1259203-1-masahiroy@kernel.org>

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 08:45:04PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 
> This series refactors __constructor_order because
> __constructor_order_last() is unneeded.
> 
> BTW, the comments in kselftest_harness.h was confusing to me.
> 
> As far as I tested, all arches executed constructors in the forward
> order.
> 
> [test code]
> 
>   #include <stdio.h>
> 
>   static int x;
> 
>   static void __attribute__((constructor)) increment(void)
>   {
>            x += 1;
>   }
> 
>   static void __attribute__((constructor)) multiply(void)
>   {
>           x *= 2;
>   }
> 
>   int main(void)
>   {
>           printf("foo = %d\n", x);
>           return 0;
>   }
> 
> It should print 2 for forward order systems, 1 for reverse order systems.
> 
> I executed it on some archtes by using QEMU. I always got 2.

IIRC, and it was a long time ago now, it was actually a difference
between libc implementations where I encountered the problem. Maybe
glibc vs Bionic?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook