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 E350FC678D5 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229891AbjCHDO3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:14:29 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43840 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229480AbjCHDOZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:14:25 -0500 Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C4793E36 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:14:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id f20so10378985uam.3 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 19:14:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1678245262; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mVQyhGIjzGLxG0mBx3cK6dRChw0rYjuOJl9Yewk2Iic=; b=k2gCpJqtOzFfNKBru2PISKZD5J7z/Yd8lvw5EmCazQhKxv951ImyV7L3NY94ZtyCnT XlxiliDpvy4zQPN9gVWADWQP7tDBdwjJuNvCZ2+XAT45zuDKT240p7SrcdphGj1EG/sr cHKErcHfCqD7beV+QhGxxEYMMsQv+D06LV22WwO1g1Vx3LNTgZKQP4N7ji8NstSt/Y5p bG04eoOSnSHDdBczkNtcs10ldfpxmbt2EQdYgDccH2g/0B1UpADqUEuRKWW/KompCjBt icToITfI5eqZpLmpR70MnQ0x3FSUxn181JvMG0/hqFQF0M3oBvV88UonpZOhrybYr/cp 5ldw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678245262; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mVQyhGIjzGLxG0mBx3cK6dRChw0rYjuOJl9Yewk2Iic=; b=ISzNh5URyAsAEA83qRq9MOwuSOxTYt1ch1/WyH7eLKumwN9pKkM2qbHjg4Aoaowegn oHeYVXkwGfn4nApnh2QG2pReXc+x4gu89d+ZF0rqkEyz7jVWZVwm0H/oFJNEPHGZNeni 3e42RedlRhuFY5VU9s31LrA3NI9Ye+/dUr/endIFq/KdrXomMej2iyaP2qSy6PDwuVWG BMzAFzcGl2L2Onm9mCLjc2ciD314EbpcOexLCiDgyPJMobrWd7m5UUmUdvg5aMgWfQme It8iv+rb/V0zs1/1qWYTHhocyX3BDfRXoxwfPLQXZgui8D6ueIvTN27r+BL7H6aDJkO7 v+3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVoZ/3+aXn4MilVuhn3p1WpGErDTUCIY8qg7dB70ACm6p7tg34+ Q8luebVMAKuV/Ow8qRqTJYGzDZgAtc6fmoy6hoh6iQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/0/9etugk4EWZ98upUdsyc4nR6XB+TVtxbVyTOH/Lpo635BbFq4IcB7zz/qJzVU9FvaVcfJAH/EldwKai1paA= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3149:0:b0:68b:923a:d6f4 with SMTP id n9-20020a9f3149000000b0068b923ad6f4mr10765290uab.2.1678245262385; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 19:14:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50a96bb9-113a-cb06-919c-f544f6b59493@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <50a96bb9-113a-cb06-919c-f544f6b59493@intel.com> From: Naresh Kamboju Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 08:44:11 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: selftests: sigaltstack: sas # exit=1 - # Bail out! SP is not on sigaltstack - on clang build To: "Chang S. Bae" , llvm@lists.linux.dev Cc: "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, open list , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , Len Brown , Borislav Petkov , Stas Sergeev , Arnd Bergmann , Anders Roxell , Nathan Chancellor Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + LLVM On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 00:58, Chang S. Bae wrote: > > On 3/6/2023 10:57 PM, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > kselftest: sigaltstack built with clang-16 getting failed but passed with > > gcc-12 build. Please find more details about test logs on clang-16 and > > gcc-12 and steps to reproduce locally on your machine by using tuxrun. > > > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing > > > > Test log: > > ---------- > > > > Linux version 6.3.0-rc1-next-20230307 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (Debian clang > > version 16.0.0 (++20230228093516+60692a66ced6-1~exp1~20230228093525.41), > > Debian LLD 16.0.0) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1678159722 > > ... > > kselftest: Running tests in sigaltstack > > TAP version 13 > > 1..1 > > # selftests: sigaltstack: sas > > # # [NOTE] the stack size is 21104 > > # TAP version 13 > > # 1..3 > > # ok 1 Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > > # Bail out! SP is not on sigaltstack > > # # Planned tests != run tests (3 != 1) > > # # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > not ok 1 selftests: sigaltstack: sas # exit=1 > > > > Linux version 6.3.0-rc1-next-20230307 (tuxmake@tuxmake) > > (aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils > > for Debian) 2.40) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1678159736 > > ... > > kselftest: Running tests in sigaltstack > > TAP version 13 > > 1..1 > > # selftests: sigaltstack: sas > > # # [NOTE] the stack size is 50080 > > # TAP version 13 > > # 1..3 > > # ok 1 Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > > # # [RUN] signal USR1 > > # ok 2 sigaltstack is disabled in sighandler > > # # [RUN] switched to user ctx > > # # [RUN] signal USR2 > > # # [OK] Stack preserved > > # ok 3 sigaltstack is still SS_AUTODISARM after signal > > # # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > ok 1 selftests: sigaltstack: sas > > At glance, the log shows the altstack size difference between LLVM and GCC. > > But, when I tried with the LLVM that I have, > > $ clang --version > clang version 13.0.0 ... > > it failed only with this compiler: > > $ rm sas;clang -o sas sas.c;./sas > # [NOTE] the stack size is 8192 > TAP version 13 > 1..3 > ok 1 Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > Bail out! SP is not on sigaltstack > # Planned tests != run tests (3 != 1) > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > $ rm sas;gcc -o sas sas.c;./sas > # [NOTE] the stack size is 8192 > TAP version 13 > 1..3 > ok 1 Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > # [RUN] signal USR1 > ok 2 sigaltstack is disabled in sighandler > # [RUN] switched to user ctx > # [RUN] signal USR2 > # [OK] Stack preserved > ok 3 sigaltstack is still SS_AUTODISARM after signal > # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > The same is true with some old versions -- e.g. the one that came with > commit 0c49ad415512 ("tools/testing/selftests/sigaltstack/sas.c: improve > output of sigaltstack testcase"): > > $ rm sas;clang -o sas sas.c;./sas > [OK] Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > [FAIL] SP is not on sigaltstack > > $ rm sas;gcc -o sas sas.c;./sas > [OK] Initial sigaltstack state was SS_DISABLE > [RUN] signal USR1 > [OK] sigaltstack is disabled in sighandler > [RUN] switched to user ctx > [RUN] signal USR2 > [OK] Stack preserved > [OK] sigaltstack is still SS_AUTODISARM after signal > [OK] Test passed > > So, this test failure appears to have been there for a while. I think > the LLVM folks need to take a look at it. > > Thanks, > Chang