kernel-packages team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
[Bug 1520627] Re: New personality for more accurate armv7l emulation on arm64
This bug is awaiting verification that the kernel in -proposed solves
the problem. Please test the kernel and update this bug with the
results. If the problem is solved, change the tag 'verification-needed-
wily' to 'verification-done-wily'.
If verification is not done by 5 working days from today, this fix will
be dropped from the source code, and this bug will be closed.
See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how
to enable and use -proposed. Thank you!
** Tags added: verification-needed-wily
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
New personality for more accurate armv7l emulation on arm64
Status in linux package in Ubuntu:
Status in linux source package in Wily:
Status in linux source package in Xenial:
We're working on bringing up new arm64 builder infrastructure in
Launchpad scalingstack to replace the current bare-metal builders, and
the current plan is that they should be able to cover armhf as well.
Ideally, we would be able to do this using the same guest images:
scalingstack builders are reset at the end of the previous build so
that latency for new builds is lower when the build farm isn't at 100%
use, which means that we don't in general know which architecture a
given builder is going to need to build next, so we can get better
density out of our hardware by having the same guest images be able to
handle more than one architecture.
Things mostly work just by chrooting into an armhf chroot under
linux32. However, this causes "uname -m" to print "armv8l", while our
current value on our armhf builders is "armv7l". I'd initially
thought that this would be tolerable, but my understanding from Adam
Conrad is that the breakage from poorly-written build scripts that
misdetect the architecture as a result is quite widespread. So, we
would like to have a personality value available that would cause
"uname -m" to print "armv7l".
This doesn't look completely trivial, because newuname() basically
just has compat and non-compat mode for architectures based on whether
the personality is PER_LINUX32 or not, and doesn't currently seem to
have extension points beyond that. I'm hoping this is fixable. If
not, we need to know with as much lead time as possible so that we can
bring up separate armhf guests, since that's going to be a fair amount
of work for us to arrange.
To manage notifications about this bug go to: