Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5985C64EC4 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:24:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229926AbjCCJYe (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2023 04:24:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52144 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230463AbjCCJYQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2023 04:24:16 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA4918AB2; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 01:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B26DB61797; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:23:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A20BEC433D2; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:23:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1677835385; bh=5rAq4DRMnfXqf31CO2EB+R2Q+ES411ESoOEr4cQLf8Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aexNQ3uOn3ElDk3E+5B2jY/nufUi4fCwgDN/jqzdvafE8UmwbnW+oxiby+5lSF4Wg 2i5hVpoQkhYqrDdvMhwq1O49f0GmcK6K0uQL184wV8HiWxxa6Enl2xVQeTvTH2gi8J YzktmFFJIPW1VKHXvIItzcDf0+PSc5I71ACQoL04= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 10:23:02 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Naresh Kamboju Cc: Paolo Abeni , stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, mptcp@lists.linux.dev, Florian Westphal , Mat Martineau , Matthieu Baerts , Anders Roxell Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/42] 6.1.15-rc1 review Message-ID: References: <20230301180657.003689969@linuxfoundation.org> <9586d0f99e27483b600d8eb3b5c6635b50905d82.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 13:34, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 01:32 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 16:30, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 16:00, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:49:31PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 23:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.15 release. > > > > > > > There are 42 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > > > > > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > > > > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Responses should be made by Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:06:43 +0000. > > > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.15-rc1.gz > > > > > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y > > > > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > Regression found on Linux version 6.1.15-rc1 on 32-bit arm x15 and i386. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Build > > > > > > * kernel: 6.1.15-rc1 > > > > > > * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc > > > > > > * git branch: linux-6.1.y > > > > > > * git commit: b6150251d4ddf8a80510c185d839631e252e6317 > > > > > > * git describe: v6.1.14-43-gb6150251d4dd > > > > > > * test details: > > > > > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.14-43-gb6150251d4dd > > > > > > > > > > > > Regression test cases, > > > > > > i386: > > > > > > x15: > > > > > > * kselftest-net-mptcp/net_mptcp_mptcp_sockopt_sh > > > > > > > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > > > > > > > test log: > > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > > > > > > > # selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_sockopt.sh > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > Nit, wrapping a log like this makes it hard to read, don't you think? > > > > > > > > Me either. > > > > That is the reason I have shared "Assertion" above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > # server killed by signal 6 > > > > > > # > > > > > > # FAIL: SOL_MPTCP getsockopt > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -t tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -6 -t tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -r tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -6 -r tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -r tcp -t tcp > > > > > > not ok 6 selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_sockopt.sh # exit=1 > > > > > > > > > > Any chance you can bisect? > > > > > > > > We are running our bisection scripts. > > > > > > We have tested with 6.1.14 kselftests source again and it passes. > > > Now that we have upgraded to 6.2.1 kselftests source, we find that > > > there is this problem reported. so, not a kernel regression. > > > > I read the above as you are running self-tests from 6.2.1 on top of an > > older (6.1) kernel. Is that correct? > > correct. > > > If so failures are expected; Shouldn't the test be able to know that "new features" are not present and properly skip the test for when that happens? Otherwise this feels like a problem going forward as no one will know if this feature can be used or not (assuming it is a new feature and not just a functional change.) thanks, greg k-h