Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:00:01 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, ast@kernel.org,
        axboe@kernel.dk, bfields@fieldses.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, chainsaw@gentoo.org,
        christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, chuck.lever@oracle.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, dhowells@redhat.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org,
        lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com,
        philipp.reisner@linbit.com, ravenexp@gmail.com,
        roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, serge@hallyn.com, slyfox@gentoo.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@loongson.cn,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, markward@linux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used
 seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)
Message-ID: <20200626090001.GA30103@infradead.org>
References: <3118dc0d-a3af-9337-c897-2380062a8644@de.ibm.com>
 <20200624144311.GA5839@infradead.org>
 <9e767819-9bbe-2181-521e-4d8ca28ca4f7@de.ibm.com>
 <20200624160953.GH4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
 <ea41e2a9-61f7-aec1-79e5-7b08b6dd5119@de.ibm.com>
 <4e27098e-ac8d-98f0-3a9a-ea25242e24ec@de.ibm.com>
 <4d8fbcea-a892-3453-091f-d57c03f9aa90@de.ibm.com>
 <1263e370-7cee-24d8-b98c-117bf7c90a83@de.ibm.com>
 <20200626025410.GJ4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
 <feb6a8c4-2b94-3f95-6637-679e089a71ca@de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <feb6a8c4-2b94-3f95-6637-679e089a71ca@de.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 07:22:34AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26.06.20 04:54, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:37:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24.06.20 20:32, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >> [...]> 
> >>> So the translations look correct. But your change is actually a sematic change
> >>> if(ret) will only trigger if there is an error
> >>> if (KWIFEXITED(ret)) will always trigger when the process ends. So we will always overwrite -ECHILD
> >>> and we did not do it before. 
> >>>
> >>
> >> So the right fix is
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/umh.c b/kernel/umh.c
> >> index f81e8698e36e..a3a3196e84d1 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/umh.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/umh.c
> >> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void call_usermodehelper_exec_sync(struct subprocess_info *sub_info)
> >>                  * the real error code is already in sub_info->retval or
> >>                  * sub_info->retval is 0 anyway, so don't mess with it then.
> >>                  */
> >> -               if (KWIFEXITED(ret))
> >> +               if (KWEXITSTATUS(ret))
> >>                         sub_info->retval = KWEXITSTATUS(ret);
> >>         }
> >>  
> >> I think.
> > 
> > Nope, the right form is to check for WIFEXITED() before using WEXITSTATUS().
> 
> But this IS a change over the previous code, no?
> I will test next week as I am travelling right now. 

I'm all for reverting back to the previous behavior.  If someone wants
a behavior change it should be a separate patch.  And out of pure self
interest I'd like to see that change after my addition of the
kernel_wait helper to replace the kernel_wait4 abuse :)