From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BDCB20651E for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:05:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729861522; cv=none; b=iwKiDra8pqPCEsMDbEzwebUDCHSgdLByzw3tbm1Nsxqt4IxSnfloIraqZS7b/j/NeZX/ND1ZxRDjjhVG3DF9TypjnunKwVn0saXgC1oVlTFsrcczIcfrkEAAYsUsPF+X7i3DDEufvAbKr2zrHFG/mxuppa9HfKF0VNYMXYZ+FBA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729861522; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UCLSDO/jm1mAVqY7mkCIBEwU4gXpjBMrnFbP+zDQ02c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZK8r80UL7BPwhvGuobUiAiU3le1/gCsDzO62DG+A3+w7RXYZuEaDdw4O+Lt7RrWsrlRpO70ad/bqfJWwGaw+q1hR6MuLJeqEW/JiYdiwaiPBYJVJTY/8Vbp5sYOb1ZHr7xE5Rp9pr9QvULHZu85EGulYhM/F77ZvpS+//dR6w14= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=aSBKpYGI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="aSBKpYGI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1729861519; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NN2SUD+OUfJKgPj+21gkXoKJrVd7DZ/UXCkZWnA0qJs=; b=aSBKpYGIKK7D+KGs3+iXX15qBEbA5LceCf5I6B92iBQHVqNikzIxSSFLDfK+6Gtfm7/1qh Xau9Njf4xVxDoK11WT5lKnQwOaNC5bZpkpOn8ySdbcOKgUvF4s382kPS8gq2YsiFyam4mr +j1XP45XVwyEJmyeCnySLFaHuD4Ia7c= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-493-ajUt4_eCO_iUIK0b6BcmSg-1; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:05:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ajUt4_eCO_iUIK0b6BcmSg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-37d4af408dcso958868f8f.0 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729861516; x=1730466316; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NN2SUD+OUfJKgPj+21gkXoKJrVd7DZ/UXCkZWnA0qJs=; b=l4rK1z6NU6t+eE4Xskjghe+CCUz3t5c8UgsEeR16Rt5ZYHXneSSo1a0XXbTLTPYkBS tFYesNhakr7bQ4A7YA0Q/svgNouf1SUYMitDvj6gBUkgd5k7AwjN8pR9vgwWCyOxZmbW 9O/zS5Yr339+DfM9FQ6AuV/Kg8fl7japSd5biHrSU9OTBAznlVva2qvZ71Hfa+MzKDcR nNpP8ubU2WRQy3tzhoRQFJuEeytxVJi1ymvXMD57jL91WJAwPhcHzlnEhBHYlX3GNZ/A +TCyrZpfY5LJhE15pPhv7fF4ebMviIXAAQMJzq5I7deTSJGvdRyTst6DFniachJQajYF 9I/A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVjQSrcFspXaA9HmFAeQ1zdx7RtqcLWQg3McgKuGIWI5RZQz4w50miQteAhpvWsQwnNKnnlVso=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwIjSG1VTfjD54eSchq15QHITqXnC7uJzys37uIAgThJvA/3xfl xsibel1hmTr4pPuFMVxY2sEHcH/s+lvwVs4X/hYY/ll4DVfyYl8W3OQsvM400nRVRpGEg4ukLHT 2OYzE/f9dHnBkNV3j7q3eDYYbjiUnJatlb7FwaeMLGqB64C4kVqURpA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6189:0:b0:37d:39c1:4d3 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3803ac84451mr3932492f8f.6.1729861516616; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:05:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEHZX9EQgHC8n+5rGdSPJEtECAS97R5nQ80Ja/EQnqyzVVLXnGbDJE3YBe+VRN9JY0lWOP/Cw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6189:0:b0:37d:39c1:4d3 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3803ac84451mr3932455f8f.6.1729861516074; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a01:e0a:59e:9d80:527b:9dff:feef:3874? ([2a01:e0a:59e:9d80:527b:9dff:feef:3874]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-38058b9216fsm1459852f8f.100.2024.10.25.06.05.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7c1a7b1c-6fbf-4bd9-80d0-d2c3d951e342@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:05:13 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Don't eagerly teardown the vgic on init error To: Mark Brown Cc: Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Oliver Upton , stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Potapenko References: <20241009183603.3221824-1-maz@kernel.org> <3f0918bf-0265-4714-9660-89b75da49859@sirena.org.uk> <86ldyd2x7t.wl-maz@kernel.org> <92d755af-e19b-49a5-b4df-a8ed0fb7aece@redhat.com> From: Eric Auger In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mark, On 10/25/24 14:59, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 10/25/24 12:54, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> I'm not even sure that's a terrible fix, looking at the changelog I get >>> the impression the test is deliberately looking to do problematic things >>> with the goal of making sure that the kernel handles them appropriately. >>> That's not interacting well with the KVM selftest framework's general >>> assert early assert often approach but it's a reasonable thing to want > >> Can you elaborate on the "assert early assert often approach". What >> shall this test rather do according to you? > > In general the KVM selftests are filled with asserts which just > immediately cause the test to exit with a backtrace. That's certainly > an approach that can be taken with testsuites, but it does make things > very fagile. This means that if the test is deliberately doing > something which is liable to cause errors and put the VM in a bad state > then it seems relatively likely that some part of a partial cleanup will > run into a spurious error caused by the earlier testing putting the VM > in an error state. OK I better understand now. Thank you for the clarification. > >> I am OoO next week but I can have a look afterwards. On which machine is >> it failing? > > It was failing on a wide range of arm64 machines, I think every one I > test (which would track with the change being very generic). Yes I can reproduce on my end. Thanks Eric