On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:27:08PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 04:11:48PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > It is useful to be able to designate that certain flags are 'sticky', that > > > is, if two VMAs are merged one with a flag of this nature and one without, > > > the merged VMA sets this flag. > > > > I'm seeing regressions on multiple arm64 platforms in at least the LTP > > clone302 and madvise10 selftests, both of which have bisected to one of > > the fixups to this patch. Especially given the other tests that also > > bisected to the same place I've not investigated further. There's a > > number of other LTP tests that started failing today including relevant > > seeming ones munlockall01, mprotect04, madvise10, mprotect03 and > > futex_cmp_requeue01 but I don't have bisects to confirm they're the same > > thing. > > > > Thanks for the reports! > > > clone302: > > > > tst_buffers.c:57: TINFO: Test is using guarded buffers > > tst_tmpdir.c:316: TINFO: Using /tmp/LTP_clorMwMMw as tmpdir (nfs filesystem) > > tst_test.c:1953: TINFO: LTP version: 20250530 > > tst_test.c:1956: TINFO: Tested kernel: 6.18.0-rc6-next-20251119 #1 SMP > > PREEMPT @1763523415 aarch64 > > next-20251119 still has the v3 version of the patchset, which is Known Bad(tm) > after a couple of buggy fixups. v4 should hopefully work properly. > > -- > Pedro
Thanks for the reports Mark and also for following up Pedro, and yeah this should now be fully resolved in v4, see [0]. The fixups were just broken but luckily Pedro noticed the mistake I'd made and so was able to get a fix out quickly! :) [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ Cheers, Lorenzo
