Re: [PATCH 5.17 000/772] 5.17.14-rc1 review

Guenter Roeck
2022-06-09T13:38:15Z

On 6/9/22 05:51, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 at 19:24, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 23:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.17.14 release.
>>> There are 772 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> Responses should be made by Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:48:02 +0000.
>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>
>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.17.14-rc1.gz
>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.17.y
>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
>>
>> Regressions found on qemu_x86_64:
>> - kunit/kasan [1]
>>
>> Regressions found on qemu_i386:
>> - kunit/kfence [2]
>> - kunit/test_out_of_bounds_read
>>
>> We will bisect and let you know more details about this reported problem.
>
> The bisect script pointed me to this commit and reverted and tested and
> confirmed.
>

I see the same error messages after enabling CONFIG_KFENCE_KUNIT_TEST, but
it doesn't go away after removing the patch below. That patch also seems
to be completely unrelated to the error.

I also see the same problem in the mainline kernel. I suspect that something
is wrong with CONFIG_KFENCE_KUNIT_TEST.

Guenter

> commit 1883088ed4a0d5cc9cea500ca4e89a354ab32c11
> Author: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri May 27 23:28:18 2022 +0800
>
> md: bcache: check the return value of kzalloc() in detached_dev_do_request()
>
> commit 40f567bbb3b0639d2ec7d1c6ad4b1b018f80cf19 upstream.
>
> The function kzalloc() in detached_dev_do_request() can fail, so its
> return value should be checked.
>
> Fixes: bc082a55d25c ("bcache: fix inaccurate io state for detached
> bcache devices")
> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <oslab@tsinghua.edu.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220527152818.27545-4-colyli@suse.de
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> index d15aae6c51c1..673a680240a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> @@ -1107,6 +1107,12 @@ static void detached_dev_do_request(struct
> bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio,
> * which would call closure_get(&dc->disk.cl)
> */
> ddip = kzalloc(sizeof(struct detached_dev_io_private), GFP_NOIO);
> + if (!ddip) {
> + bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> + bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> ddip->d = d;
> /* Count on the bcache device */
> ddip->orig_bdev = orig_bdev;
>
>
>
>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>>
>> [1] https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.17.y/build/v5.17.13-773-gd0f9b2818e1e/testrun/10038101/suite/kunit/test/kasan/details/
>> [2] https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.17.y/build/v5.17.13-773-gd0f9b2818e1e/testrun/10038215/suite/kunit/test/kfence/details/
>>
>> ## Build
>> * kernel: 5.17.14-rc1
>> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
>> * git branch: linux-5.17.y
>> * git commit: d0f9b2818e1e4d43847e10d6e5310a0c653cb18f
>> * git describe: v5.17.13-773-gd0f9b2818e1e
>> * test details:
>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.17.y/build/v5.17.13-773-gd0f9b2818e1e
>>
>> ## Test Regressions (compared to v5.17.11-188-g8eb69e8f0d45)
>> Regressions found on qemu_x86_64:
>> - kunit/kasan [1]
>>
>> Regressions found on qemu_i386:
>> - kunit/kfence [2]
>> - kunit/test_out_of_bounds_read
>>
>> ## Metric Regressions (compared to v5.17.11-188-g8eb69e8f0d45)
>> No metric regressions found.
>>
>> ## Test Fixes (compared to v5.17.11-188-g8eb69e8f0d45)
>> No test fixes found.
>>
>> ## Metric Fixes (compared to v5.17.11-188-g8eb69e8f0d45)
>> No metric fixes found.
>>
>> ## Test result summary
>> total: 134591, pass: 121555, fail: 447, skip: 11730, xfail: 859
>>
>> ## Build Summary
>> * arm: 17 total, 14 passed, 3 failed
>> * arm64: 20 total, 20 passed, 0 failed
>> * i386: 17 total, 12 passed, 5 failed
>> * mips: 4 total, 1 passed, 3 failed
>> * parisc: 2 total, 2 passed, 0 failed
>> * powerpc: 5 total, 2 passed, 3 failed
>> * riscv: 5 total, 5 passed, 0 failed
>> * s390: 5 total, 2 passed, 3 failed
>> * sh: 2 total, 0 passed, 2 failed
>> * sparc: 2 total, 2 passed, 0 failed
>> * x86_64: 20 total, 20 passed, 0 failed
>>
>> ## Test suites summary
>> * fwts
>> * kunit
>> * kvm-unit-tests
>> * libgpiod
>> * libhugetlbfs
>> * log-parser-boot
>> * log-parser-test
>> * ltp-cap_bounds
>> * ltp-cap_bounds-tests
>> * ltp-commands
>> * ltp-commands-tests
>> * ltp-containers
>> * ltp-containers-tests
>> * ltp-controllers-tests
>> * ltp-cpuhotplug-tests
>> * ltp-crypto
>> * ltp-crypto-tests
>> * ltp-cve-tests
>> * ltp-dio-tests
>> * ltp-fcntl-locktests
>> * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
>> * ltp-filecaps
>> * ltp-filecaps-tests
>> * ltp-fs
>> * ltp-fs-tests
>> * ltp-fs_bind
>> * ltp-fs_bind-tests
>> * ltp-fs_perms_simple
>> * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
>> * ltp-fsx
>> * ltp-fsx-tests
>> * ltp-hugetlb
>> * ltp-hugetlb-tests
>> * ltp-io
>> * ltp-io-tests
>> * ltp-ipc
>> * ltp-ipc-tests
>> * ltp-math-tests
>> * ltp-mm-tests
>> * ltp-nptl
>> * ltp-nptl-tests
>> * ltp-open-posix-tests
>> * ltp-pty
>> * ltp-pty-tests
>> * ltp-sched-tests
>> * ltp-securebits
>> * ltp-securebits-tests
>> * ltp-syscalls-tests
>> * ltp-tracing-tests
>> * network-basic-tests
>> * packetdrill
>> * perf
>> * rcutorture
>> * ssuite
>> * v4l2-compliance
>> * vdso
>>
>> --
>> Linaro LKFT
>> https://lkft.linaro.org