Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp7854225wrg; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:19:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuq9ZfXAvVVKi4rMZd3HqwScDREEkXMvM2DbtrVUPVH4eho2hg/gKXikvyklp1SXV0MZEVO X-Received: by 10.98.34.143 with SMTP id p15mr3171402pfj.101.1519935543841; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:19:03 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519935543; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JrSf6W6kxqCIbUhlL1BVyTf5rPuHaplKAgjkn1PdtqgL4+J2cvqsOrn2dZGp8THVXg 6169jrti+MNECFNz9bUo9/99ENgooucuiqYl6BBGZrRlRIspINXB+5E9A9qEKEtKgeW2 krj1+quM+LALtQMuO840NjM6kTPVnb9N+IoZaawZV8I2R/SlVi1W8Pml7qyqaeJyyLI5 TfaciQ9EIiPFUsaFZA6gK5D/H+7ipqAjNPmpv+rthkKdwV+16Pm1tJEcD/SeCoQRRf51 Agxc2jqc7ydZtWuVvX2FxRfmPvEfKnUu6j8jH1YSrviAEwpA8ksaio13eqT4NgGgSe1U eisw== 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=VDiqjLyhCZlU8u6HOFDZFVk4bk/ef7B2JJr75sc0+Rg=; b=pNWfKRXMewQkJQuK4RASMBwrnC8DasjE5FKyuM2fuvjyXWVcBXnEB6AvQaRU7NapmG gppJWxgSUk/6aWM12cexSj2xUjqasanT91+DoSIJ0t6UhmOpm2Z0Wb6FNMDEAT7un8s2 DeAuHbAyi73urrGQYkJQu5IlPh9DBi0JPIm6u+Uu3hh5JKSrulOuvQKNjE3vlTiVkQPz XflshzaHhGEjqQ9+z9B/lFwagYoqc4NJrOW6Fq2AyEfzcEemjpQ85/OlANDu78ZEQPva b7twCtS46KY5XW23xzV7SKAdkqyN+rCxZ4x+mU1d2KsE+BEyTkyuhSVbgD1I+p8vrloG kNnA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=Iu1q88yQ; 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p18-v6si3501624plo.388.2018.03.01.12.18.48; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:19:03 -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=@paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=Iu1q88yQ; 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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161539AbeCAURx (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:17:53 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:40731 "EHLO mail-lf0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161487AbeCAURv (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:17:51 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 37so10204990lfs.7 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:17:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VDiqjLyhCZlU8u6HOFDZFVk4bk/ef7B2JJr75sc0+Rg=; b=Iu1q88yQqD8Qhu4KaIllF24xBPg3p8qNH83PeE2ddgtL7w/SXtLPHL7QgB0uwzYCb7 FyAagvoqnMYlBtln/232n5xJroFeZgoB1AgXIeOphh+v8pFAJRim/91YJ75cnx/LINg+ XV+RRoKuLfPvNY8Zmv0bgnO7QORJWtlHG1/K/mVMzkLD2z9wwrabwzV8XLXnT8/D9wFH pqEoEFm9RvuCOA+80rcEXUKTSKxg7CHPziHrRrWrU9Dl9drvL68tO6FKSu/vHfQCTBab dYQvu8h3QfzbI7/u+FnWzf7PgpOTvqpj0EcZ+lOquUpHJ943mTPHN5gX4KK6P1nHgqJg dr5w== 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=VDiqjLyhCZlU8u6HOFDZFVk4bk/ef7B2JJr75sc0+Rg=; b=dphSb3rdLODP47A+gvxWRmclJyr1dJ5dnfxipjt8bCu7PNaiC84A+X+BybQ3aXPQS0 WUa3mC7hU6k7MpylPyFedrgawEUxbBArOonjfeOhzopxEMULxuFi4IvWqd04/wcCguYE j9cn9IdbX6Yv1hd1PpQ1oRDCzwdM1et3qDh7jXrJMYLBB9WW6KzrffPk80o+rp59cg5M je76/lrs2Yshdgh7+/8zGqxmTEsdxxmqLk6JT0i3IvawQYX6e1bAWmmn38vkeF8op46F j8Ks+edtgiiEDWQFNQpSM9n8onD70NmadkK9IytPS8g3Zi6HP9STHmuxRzN6ZOy1UUli IUXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HcpWHZqscE507rgHi3n5e9h5TgY6JiEv44Y5+fH4UUsRZ8nqQi Eo45e4QOf52jZvHdQKWzwYsKw0DPCWip2zqIbT3x X-Received: by 10.25.221.14 with SMTP id u14mr2352328lfg.145.1519935469596; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.216.167 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:17:48 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [108.20.156.165] In-Reply-To: References: <20180301083316.GA6779@localhost.localdomain> From: Paul Moore Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regression found when running LTP connect01 on next-20180301 To: Anders Roxell 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 Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Anders Roxell wrote: > 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. So this means that only the connect01 test experienced failures? >> 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 -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com