Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp7839658wrg; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:03:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuyXZUeZVi2slX+q9WD45552HLliQtCugyYAM1vWCNsTigmMgaydiunAnZFEpXX4WgZ4rV+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6c06:: with SMTP id q6-v6mr3008627plk.142.1519934601272; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:03:21 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519934601; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=f55FnHXhsM9JrhZd/ol2J1X2JVl+BnhICGfyPkQ9diy3ALK4m/sR60Hr1hcPawBPTR eyd7D/iVOXBBV987VwwkQjqNMX/2nMdVEXFowMZ4EOgBl8TyOWpCE6DSy5nj6MhhprTt D4Nnm+rLsOExiHuOP9UNwK5JIsytaQdpLGpb9u7WKA/wG0IBbcJxiuoKH4460shQ74eG Mr+//GIWenL+A3R7RbfEHa/qYZwQ794oV5MhaknAuTWfiysG70LdgC4FS2mxBFDbZqKU V/1rVbzJcsJwmCawsJU6wu5lhiusOnsedc8QV0jyik70aNjnOfSZl2f+kQ+wh0vp0gFC Ybyw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=WTWIODkGBbxMRp0dJh9CJKUuuDitWhL1eKyS3ykVduY=; b=OegjZBuV6RxYoX36l91Mo6YoIR6/T4L4pBRrwOrpY2KRcjPZq6W0uti/eP4nTbEPab E2k1GqUkVl2TuvGYywD+X8iuuOSW5BKGNaDZdr35uUSQBtPBRgLfdt51Ah0nm8NCKvLb 6AjWNtu5n382DQ0U/zWRlKE2sRvmDqfc6uSbOkdvJbat7pV3opcrzp5td16pdNpzATgv TEh9gFi/l+NGPJlwg1AHAxDcd+pkWBpn2Cnc+F0lwJRmb/qP68POhzWSDXrqr1EJ+n5D CXoED+NTyOFeK2eSn+0UEoS0jT8SaYZXGUZsg3ur7phZt9CRs6TxEDKBlNjw9obFmpdO vYcA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=YFM/R4M4; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bc6-v6si3469657plb.250.2018.03.01.12.03.06; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=YFM/R4M4; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161423AbeCAUB4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:01:56 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:42346 "EHLO mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1033214AbeCAUBy (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:01:54 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id y8so2762799pgr.9 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:01:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WTWIODkGBbxMRp0dJh9CJKUuuDitWhL1eKyS3ykVduY=; b=YFM/R4M4nEv3Epn0/NfXFaKifNhbQIqf1ih5xE3CJrbGnKP4cEy34u0YaOhnTzav15 IrXcMoP0KSZf2S2xD5f1fNb/JhA3/BdA875hW7cy1js6f0F4Vpd5zl8JFyADZjNM5HiC 4kq1InyyV8mIhnYNZWMNVCbKTGW96miQq6HEc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WTWIODkGBbxMRp0dJh9CJKUuuDitWhL1eKyS3ykVduY=; b=AQiJoNfC01ObeMg6h7yJgRlGKB2BcqEZjnbVHlC4IAVEKNR8e5xHcFMbiFdo2PLRE7 9VbHct48Mcs3G4RCTOEp3QLslc3btoewG7+yNuTGVIliwNwYWzhYP/gqZCuVRiVqRw/8 Qjkq91JuUDqGjx882Pq6g9BZDKlvsEtOKSakGRfZKadJoxoP5JU+OxGXUmvYdvdWRmj+ 6qJ55n26krBICHpsOPKRqosD05YEbWadv7R2VrpOaOlzKarvvNw99gOzggw70UyW57LV qzofxDq92UTzTzHjvJcQoSTbBfZ044GIWK8aHarEtDmv0ITKttqJpF8S9Eq6eQWENTo9 /jbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPASITE++MQtAHZJnYYK8XYcPE7911spXVw4k1KTbG1ZYEc9dAg3 q3gnbi9mIIJXbdKkgM4NTaumtwNBbGWLf2bzbbHEYw== X-Received: by 10.99.116.22 with SMTP id p22mr2514970pgc.132.1519934513934; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:01:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.227.66 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:01:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20180301083316.GA6779@localhost.localdomain> From: Anders Roxell Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:01:53 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regression found when running LTP connect01 on next-20180301 To: Paul Moore Cc: Richard Haines , netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1 March 2018 at 14:42, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Anders Roxell wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was running LTP's testcase connect01 [1] and found a regression in linux-next >> (next-20180301). Bisect gave me this patch as the problematic patch (sha >> d452930fd3b9 "selinux: Add SCTP support") on a x86 target. >> >> Output from the test(LTP release 20180118): >> $ cd /opt/ltp/ >> $ cat runtest/syscalls |grep connect01>runtest/connect-syscall >> $ ./runltp -pq -f connect-syscall >> " >> Running tests....... >> connect01 1 TPASS : bad file descriptor successful >> connect01 2 TPASS : invalid socket buffer successful >> connect01 3 TPASS : invalid salen successful >> connect01 4 TPASS : invalid socket successful >> connect01 5 TPASS : already connected successful >> connect01 6 TPASS : connection refused successful >> connect01 7 TFAIL : connect01.c:146: invalid address family ; returned -1 (expected -1), errno 22 (expected 97) >> INFO: ltp-pan reported some tests FAIL >> LTP Version: 20180118 >> " >> >> The output from the test expected 97 and we received 22, can you please >> elaborate on what have been changed? >> >> Cheers, >> Anders >> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20180118/testcases/kernel/syscalls/connect/connect01.c#L146 > > Hi Anders, > > Thanks for the report. Out of curiosity, we're you running the full > LTP test suite and this was the only failure, or did you just run the > connect01 test? Normally we run all syscalls, but when we saw this regression I did the bisect and only ran test connect01. On every new push we ran 19 different sets of LTP tests, where connect01 is part of the syscalls test set. Cheers, Anders > Either answer is fine, I'm just trying to understand > the scope of the regression. > > Richard, are you able to look into this? If not, let me know and I'll > dig a bit deeper (I'll likely take a quick look today, but if the > failure is subtle it might require some digging). > > -- > paul moore > www.paul-moore.com