From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5BB2F21 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:08:14 +0000 (UTC) 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > 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