From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Chamberlain Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] crypto: af_alg - Fix regression on empty requests Message-Id: <20200703133558.GX4332@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <20200622224920.GA4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200623064056.GA8121@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200623170217.GB150582@gmail.com> <20200626062948.GA25285@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> To: Herbert Xu Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Eric Biggers , LTP List , open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Linux Crypto Mailing List , Jan Stancek , chrubis , "Serge E. Hallyn" , James Morris , Jarkko Sakkinen , David Howells , "David S. Miller" , Sachin Sant , Linux Next Mailing List , linuxppc-dev , linux- stable On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:32:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:18:11PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > Since we are on this subject, > > LTP af_alg02 test case fails on stable 4.9 and stable 4.4 > > This is not a regression because the test case has been failing from > > the beginning. > > > > Is this test case expected to fail on stable 4.9 and 4.4 ? > > or any chance to fix this on these older branches ? > > > > Test output: > > af_alg02.c:52: BROK: Timed out while reading from request socket. > > > > ref: > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884917/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/history/ > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884606/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/log > > Actually this test really is broken. FWIW the patch "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" was dropped from linux-next for now as it was missing checking for signals. I'll be open coding iall checks for each UMH_WAIT_PROC callers next. Its not clear if this was the issue with this test case, but figured I'd let you know. Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F303BC433E0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B3720782 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:36:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593783366; bh=tYw1QVFf3l8wAmr8ShOa9rlUyconKQv6eBiz06jvs2Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=PZ+kTrOQ4q+aMDazHITcXJgyHF6PesaZxzHC0d/nir1d4Mo0tTxBJEFhwRh/SeaWR pWPHxbA3mwFeFDQLfdimTAL1TM2HBVYoJyDUqXqZkWXnlnOhFvNxrkGfq0FvAg7lt+ EPS3VwZ3qKuXyB4YgQ2ALgExHYrDz/cZTsd2mLjA= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726098AbgGCNgB (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:36:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:43894 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726035AbgGCNgB (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:36:01 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id j12so13997842pfn.10; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=T5rcVRIkgD/btpU3eP+kPgBcl/ql3dV8wsHC9ym85fc=; b=dpoBSKt9u7PzGcULVVkb3BVVTC2SRONI/mFO7qKPCcsTKF4bMSB5wwEDanojpsXGUm kwK2J5sW/qcLuKkg7HXJxYyiPTFgMIxbMBQ+qwzZzAGZiC64jo6gJKE9hkQjrT2ecJ8S 5RRKQHCIYvdyFK6p8pLC2sC1H6ozGDeuAu3brBCsqouH3ULIFK/O+oX+/om3n+zQjJdT i4BI8TyxD1kr2/OzeliwlkLweUtmbWBKe/mTeTKXuzLWANMOcwJ90W02jjPdIV88+vZ1 rvusjmydEGS3A9de9HSIXr5ID45xehpaqNyh7fFMxO40qh2iTESR9gJnLQA82lYLFVNn Gdzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533w9VkVaasqHDJDD2CoI2ePDu2dMzKUglzB3MmTWtQmnrjBmNQW BA3i4NaqP2LGNvo4+SkpaYk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpEuquvHuz9dy6BTpylDSjUJQBr0XwgRqlpSIxXVt6avNzJ3DHhTKXkfB0Cil4QhB/QzoeTw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:640c:: with SMTP id a12mr28887324pgv.88.1593783360171; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 42.do-not-panic.com (42.do-not-panic.com. [157.230.128.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m16sm12805082pfd.101.2020.07.03.06.35.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 42.do-not-panic.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1885F40945; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Herbert Xu Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Eric Biggers , LTP List , open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Linux Crypto Mailing List , Jan Stancek , chrubis , "Serge E. Hallyn" , James Morris , Jarkko Sakkinen , David Howells , "David S. Miller" , Sachin Sant , Linux Next Mailing List , linuxppc-dev , linux- stable Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] crypto: af_alg - Fix regression on empty requests Message-ID: <20200703133558.GX4332@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200622224920.GA4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200623064056.GA8121@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200623170217.GB150582@gmail.com> <20200626062948.GA25285@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:32:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:18:11PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > Since we are on this subject, > > LTP af_alg02 test case fails on stable 4.9 and stable 4.4 > > This is not a regression because the test case has been failing from > > the beginning. > > > > Is this test case expected to fail on stable 4.9 and 4.4 ? > > or any chance to fix this on these older branches ? > > > > Test output: > > af_alg02.c:52: BROK: Timed out while reading from request socket. > > > > ref: > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884917/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/history/ > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884606/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/log > > Actually this test really is broken. FWIW the patch "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" was dropped from linux-next for now as it was missing checking for signals. I'll be open coding iall checks for each UMH_WAIT_PROC callers next. Its not clear if this was the issue with this test case, but figured I'd let you know. Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Chamberlain Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 Subject: [LTP] [v2 PATCH] crypto: af_alg - Fix regression on empty requests In-Reply-To: <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20200622224920.GA4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200623064056.GA8121@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200623170217.GB150582@gmail.com> <20200626062948.GA25285@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> Message-ID: <20200703133558.GX4332@42.do-not-panic.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:32:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:18:11PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > Since we are on this subject, > > LTP af_alg02 test case fails on stable 4.9 and stable 4.4 > > This is not a regression because the test case has been failing from > > the beginning. > > > > Is this test case expected to fail on stable 4.9 and 4.4 ? > > or any chance to fix this on these older branches ? > > > > Test output: > > af_alg02.c:52: BROK: Timed out while reading from request socket. > > > > ref: > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884917/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/history/ > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884606/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/log > > Actually this test really is broken. FWIW the patch "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" was dropped from linux-next for now as it was missing checking for signals. I'll be open coding iall checks for each UMH_WAIT_PROC callers next. Its not clear if this was the issue with this test case, but figured I'd let you know. Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF093C433DF for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F036206A1 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:38:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F036206A1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ywz73kNyzDrJY for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 23:38:43 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=209.85.210.193; helo=mail-pf1-f193.google.com; envelope-from=mcgrof@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com (mail-pf1-f193.google.com [209.85.210.193]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49yww60l4hzDrDn for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 23:36:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id a14so9429964pfi.2 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=T5rcVRIkgD/btpU3eP+kPgBcl/ql3dV8wsHC9ym85fc=; b=hYh2/9rNOzpTEiVr/ozwlWHIfBmIOZRFvp4Y3tf6RyS0TKyJEOHKNRfLndNhyyWFER Ahk3XfV8F5Rr+nGeoWAKa+RVX/4azQVadxo+QcNXwPwrpdgydfgD+GsgO/2AyyxeY56a 8lxkXGnUBZsI93GYtAqwGcfFyZ1bbTg2sJVGouj/kB6QxlnjGIleesFf9L+weojHI9Wb PZDsc9+9itMDmL7Di89SJuxdoqNRZJXtcFvgX7xvyGyXPy9Bgj5svgzL9sEUdF0jbWX+ oMvyPAd/xkYfxqMVUI7m+n33DWZGJyYHJhoi7a4mmFyJTwV1pfAa1+ZAz4zmRJwzZV79 XkhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nS14cAsc4Xb3kYfR2QBIa8Iz23DbJvv/dYj8X+TlhlY4mOIMr s98a/sEiBXFsTmNrXpYyy9M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpEuquvHuz9dy6BTpylDSjUJQBr0XwgRqlpSIxXVt6avNzJ3DHhTKXkfB0Cil4QhB/QzoeTw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:640c:: with SMTP id a12mr28887324pgv.88.1593783360171; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 42.do-not-panic.com (42.do-not-panic.com. [157.230.128.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m16sm12805082pfd.101.2020.07.03.06.35.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 42.do-not-panic.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1885F40945; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:35:58 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] crypto: af_alg - Fix regression on empty requests Message-ID: <20200703133558.GX4332@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200622224920.GA4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200623064056.GA8121@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200623170217.GB150582@gmail.com> <20200626062948.GA25285@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200702033221.GA19367@gondor.apana.org.au> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sachin Sant , David Howells , "David S. Miller" , Naresh Kamboju , Jarkko Sakkinen , open list , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, James Morris , Eric Biggers , Linux Next Mailing List , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Linux Crypto Mailing List , chrubis , linux- stable , linuxppc-dev , Jan Stancek , LTP List , "Serge E. Hallyn" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:32:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:18:11PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > Since we are on this subject, > > LTP af_alg02 test case fails on stable 4.9 and stable 4.4 > > This is not a regression because the test case has been failing from > > the beginning. > > > > Is this test case expected to fail on stable 4.9 and 4.4 ? > > or any chance to fix this on these older branches ? > > > > Test output: > > af_alg02.c:52: BROK: Timed out while reading from request socket. > > > > ref: > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884917/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/history/ > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.228-191-g082e807235d7/testrun/2884606/suite/ltp-crypto-tests/test/af_alg02/log > > Actually this test really is broken. FWIW the patch "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" was dropped from linux-next for now as it was missing checking for signals. I'll be open coding iall checks for each UMH_WAIT_PROC callers next. Its not clear if this was the issue with this test case, but figured I'd let you know. Luis