From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 CA3DD282E2; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:32:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716543126; cv=none; b=r/vCsKW5TXYN/2YPCZiwqmnT0Y9JCAm3ow8IPUM0cUNSbFMuS+wa3kgfob0sR5T8uxUCtA8e6mStu6VAGLLG8umcdvhP2LxPeHsX2DCXbPGbtFzKfaMuNeMh/ADhG/enC+sXg0lH/nUZ26T0olrhrP1tmdgavQ0REdODET6FwKU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716543126; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rwAvwKwHBuccXt1++ALJWxvGf7nO+9ofOmq3PGzn/tc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=L1YzaqDxdJnPzn4JvHo79wS6iEdB7wcPhHzfyJy9Ku7Mn0Bu1i1O4bpSYJLqggifMzo/dg5+N/+b002bhgNFalI1HIQgxoSX2zbnNezIw43UISlK+enYdvZiUEAnTRCCxegFP4AxHpp5YViCbc4qcFMkr3v9q5cr505M+11P9W8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=ljAPogY6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="ljAPogY6" Received: from pps.filterd (m0353726.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44O9N43H017389; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:33 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=7is4630m7gBGeEwPyBGyvuIIaidItnoMd2eDRou0Gic=; b=ljAPogY6Xc5nYw7h4kDhE4uqSOX6jpC5WdpCqrRYsXtEb0l56jt39g+pX0W65ptwV+sB TQD84y+a9emrOehy0gTPhaEydDP4Srfe3GVD7dOQHxz8669qKsVJ21JaKu29QwHn13M4 CTireWxFK3WxQIDp4afIJtSQJMnab7MnOjBw88j116G+1zxmwJ+XnRmoJaxiAJfPrK84 umEBaAtBETdzDbcYapQ/X190C7CletZ/f9skQowaLyAVFSJJLUNfJlkoGEYCzTXacTba DH6rpM8yqWK2sdicROA6Ds6n927riXOTJV69v2jsMlEpMFUPqo4xyNBmLADg3WGpb/qv fA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3yar6u8105-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:33 +0000 Received: from m0353726.ppops.net (m0353726.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 44O9S4sE025761; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:32 GMT Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3yar6u8103-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:32 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44O8032S008123; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:31 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.5]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y78vmfby6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:31 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.101]) by smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 44O9VTXE16515792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:31 GMT Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FC65805F; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021AB5805E; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.109.245.191] (unknown [9.109.245.191]) by smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 May 2024 09:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3c6e5e78-aa49-4002-941f-af8fd2b81d10@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 15:01:18 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release_pages() Content-Language: en-US To: David Hildenbrand , "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" , Andrew Morton Cc: Shuah Khan , Matthew Wilcox , Tony Battersby , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Muchun Song References: <20240523063905.3173-1-donettom@linux.ibm.com> <20240523121344.6a67a109e0af2ba70973b34b@linux-foundation.org> <20240523195734.bc03a8822a34b1a97880fb65@linux-foundation.org> <7792c8ba-39e6-47ee-9b43-108270325c15@redhat.com> <87o78vsoav.fsf@gmail.com> From: Donet Tom In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 9SVpRuQBL_ZxKd5AyejlGygJ40Dy6mHE X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ORbpw0wF7gjoGqKtK3qPRFcZr2ETtb5A X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.650,FMLib:17.12.28.16 definitions=2024-05-24_03,2024-05-23_01,2024-05-17_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2405010000 definitions=main-2405240066 On 5/24/24 12:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 24.05.24 08:43, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >> David Hildenbrand writes: >> >> dropping stable@vger.kernel.org >> >>> On 24.05.24 04:57, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:40:25 +0200 David Hildenbrand >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You have stable@vger.kernel.org in the mail headers, so I assume >>>>>> you're >>>>>> proposing this for backporting.  When doing this, please include >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> in the changelog footers and also include a Fixes: target.  I'm >>>>>> assuming the suitable Fixes: target for this patch is 38b43539d64b? >>>>> >>>>> This adds a new selfest to make sure what was fixed (and >>>>> backported to >>>>> stable) remains fixed. >>>> >>>> Sure.  But we should provide -stable maintainers guidance for "how far >>>> back to go".  There isn't much point in backporting this into kernels >>>> where it's known to fail! >>> >>> I'm probably missing something important. >>> >>> 1) It's a test that does not fall into the common stable kernels >>> categories (see Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst). >>> >>> 2) If it fails in a kernel *it achieved its goal* of highlighting that >>> something serious is broken. >>> >>>> >>>> I'm still thinking that we want this in kernels which have >>>> 38b43539d64b? >>> >>> To hide that the other kernels are seriously broken and miss that fix? >>> >>> Really (1) this shouldn't be backported. I'm not even sure it should be >>> a selftest (sounds more like a reproducer that we usually attach to >>> commits, but that's too late). And if people care about backporting it, >>> (2) you really want this test to succeed everywhere. Especially also to >>> find kernels *without* 38b43539d64b >> >> >> Sorry about the noise and cc'd to stable. I believe we don't need to >> backport this test. The idea of adding a selftests was "also" to >> catch any >> future bugs like this. > > Yes, for that purpose it's fine, but it has quite the "specific > reproducer taste". Having it as part of something that is prepared to > run against arbitrary kernels (which selftests frequently are not) to > detect known problems feels better. > > I have seen some hugetlbfs directio tests in LTP. If you think > selftest is not the correct place to add this test, we can drop this > test from selftests and add it to LTP. > > Thanks > Donet > >> >> I am unaware of any functional test suite where we could add such tests >> like how filesystems have fstests. Hence the ideas was to add this in >> selftests. > > LTP has quite some MM testcases in testcases/kernel/mem/. But it often > has a different focus (CVE or advanced feature/syscall tests). Now > that most things are CVEs ... it might not be a bad fit ... :) > >> >> So this begs the question which I also asked few people at LSFMM, >> Does mm has any mmfvt (mm functional verification tests)? Should we have >> something like this? Was it tried in past? > > I think LTP is mostly the only "bigger" thing we have that is prepared > to run against arbitrary kernel versions. >