Received: by 2002:a05:6358:11c7:b0:104:8066:f915 with SMTP id i7csp102393rwl; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z0B86Cp3/bnt3JZzz50K8AQalxTRp7WxmYq+FDpuvoDjvf1NGo/EcZGfdhOwggIDpGYyaD X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8b05:b0:925:5eb8:92fd with SMTP id sz5-20020a1709078b0500b009255eb892fdmr44004ejc.14.1681250977160; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1681250977; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=YGLpbMWnZKP1Wd+Rcjs6iq1XVR4Uhb1SImO1eE0+wROyADRHg7I+bBBtYbLS4t9UkP B7PTYcri4fKmMMHZhKvcLj154q/MnXGU0B4PickW/6sMaMxYkPoaY+ZEhIOJZfaHOX+n /KBZ0VzCcO/LwljAV5p5tahGZY9y921/HhivKkVH4117gAN8k5peZyGtdwInxKLrdvZM /11nmoMDBvvHBgDbu3Q9fLZM9WP6plmX6T9p3OCyHsU/6luboX5swPDRnIGGyIfrwSPT UV83RC1WxXRXrKiE0pS6Z5HAEa+Rsv9dFLQdQl1ZVHsU5tUA+CxrvhpZH0GZh/HaVbV/ UoZQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=L/XjSc44gwG+nuE0NrNWNRHKpYqRY6i/VDLJHWflJa0=; b=KWGFqrBUogufsPrjooG26VYzX1Bar5eu1yMW5ADqe2Q+K60AoO4Zvkkofhk/uitLkN LWvTWpFssp4dDTGgyhPvIt67ZmjwQjN2MLeAmWbFQJ+m88wNgRFx6jod/3dtVD5+AubF 9poHgX8BppivwGrhadZwKxLKbaq4FDC0NpenxtSro3nwNXO0gj1BYuMv95IhPr9xFXZ7 njOWfAdJVHrIpYWQd3iUZGIfiFAgHo3uiZTSy2mVPEfhMrVkmOe7r1mFSbTmgipYdVjl StpAoE4hwIwm7MTS0kMdFZJcGr1Ms8E59APAVO6jZILE1i08FfBK3KhuXrsJPGeNevZf 41dA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=nopzy3ba; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h18-20020a1709070b1200b0094b5cda1875si3819615ejl.675.2023.04.11.15.09.12; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=nopzy3ba; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229492AbjDKWIT (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:08:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60002 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229451AbjDKWIR (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:08:17 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE593C24 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5831F74C; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:08:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1681250892; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L/XjSc44gwG+nuE0NrNWNRHKpYqRY6i/VDLJHWflJa0=; b=nopzy3baTfU9VDTbbEVM85Fa105wcPZ5uvMV5OmwvqnxLv3cnT80UFP7EyYuEjyT3Vzy5/ kQR3iNlCgf3Ex54h+kZK6WtxpEnelOc4KTGDIwI6k+mnGREbg6XAiRr2NvI7djuCOF9Wv5 xcdEK++37tZuWWWqi7/zxyFnfXnd4bA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1681250892; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L/XjSc44gwG+nuE0NrNWNRHKpYqRY6i/VDLJHWflJa0=; b=uF5k3OzYwEkJqEKMm/E/E5LbQ8NCt9CBWVvDN9l1zf5FrFaBnANjYsmswK2/pjLOP4Tn94 eiHYut3yEcLDeTAg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9472013638; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:08:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id jV4kI0zaNWQ3OAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:08:12 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:08:11 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Naresh Kamboju Cc: Arnd Bergmann , open list , LTP List , llvm@lists.linux.dev, chrubis , Nathan Chancellor , Anders Roxell , Daniel =?iso-8859-2?Q?D=EDaz?= , Benjamin Copeland , Tudor Cretu Subject: Re: LTP: list of failures on 32bit and compat mode Message-ID: <20230411220811.GA1798729@pevik> Reply-To: Petr Vorel References: <96b67ae8-98dd-40fe-9dde-302e09d12551@app.fastmail.com> <20230406105646.GB1545779@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 16:26, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > Following LTP syscalls failed on the i386 and arm environments with > > > > Linux next / mainline kernels. The userspace is coming from Open > > > > Embedded kirkstone. > > > Thanks for the report and summary! I went through the list and found > > > that most if not all of the bugs looks like incompatibilities > > > with musl, not with 32-bit. It's probably not well tested with > > > musl. > > > Can you try again with glibc and see if there are any remaining > > > issues then? LTP should probably be fixed to work with both, but > > > if nobody has done that so far, it's likely that this has come > > > up in the past but ran into problems upstreaming the fixes. > > > > Anyone seeing this problem on 32-bit i386 or arm ? > > > > You get to see "segfault" in the following logs that have been noticed > > > > on i386 only. > > > > This is not a new problem. We have been noticing these failures for a > > > > really long time. > > > > Would it be worth investigating the reason for failures on 32bit architectures ? > > > > Test logs, > > > > ----- > > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 6.3.0-rc5-next-20230406 (tuxmake@tuxmake) > > > > (i686-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 11.3.0-11) 11.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils > > > > for Debian) 2.40) #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC @1680759389 > > > > Test environment: i386 > > > > Suite: ltp-syscalls > > > > Toolchain: gcc-11 > > > > fstatfs02 > > > > fstatfs02 1 TPASS : expected failure - errno = 9 : Bad file descriptor > > > > fstatfs02 2 TBROK : tst_sig.c:232: unexpected signal SIGSEGV(11) > > > > received (pid = 17841). > > > > fstatfs02 3 TBROK : tst_sig.c:232: Remaining cases broken > > This is IMHO using the old LTP API. > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/fstatfs/fstatfs02.c was converted to new LTP API in > > 5a8f89d35 ("syscalls/statfs02, fstatfs02: Convert to new API"), which was > > released in 20220930. There is already newer release 20230127. > > Generally it's safer to test mainline kernel with LTP master, > > but this fix has already been in the latest LTP release 20230127. > > And this error has been later fixed with > > 492542072 ("syscalls/statfs02, fstatfs02: Accept segfault instead of EFAULT") I'm sorry, I was wrong stating that unexpected signal SIGSEGV(11) error was fixed by 492542072. > Thanks for insite about the failed test investigations. > > @Naresh which LTP do you use for testing? It must be some older LTP :(. > Our build system started running LTP version 20230127. I'm sorry, I obviously misinterpreted the test output as old LTP code. > I will keep you posted with the latest findings. Thanks! Kind regards, Petr > - Naresh