Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Andy, On 24 June 2017 at 10:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a >> design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace. After

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Andy, On 24 June 2017 at 10:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a >> design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace. After determining >> that fixing it

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:45:37AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:34:07AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > So taking the position that any kselftest script on linux-next or a future > > kernel should never break stable implicate that *any* fix going upstream for >

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:45:37AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:34:07AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > So taking the position that any kselftest script on linux-next or a future > > kernel should never break stable implicate that *any* fix going upstream for >

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:34:07AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So taking the position that any kselftest script on linux-next or a future > kernel should never break stable implicate that *any* fix going upstream for > which there is a respective ksefltest test *must* have a stable upstream

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:34:07AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So taking the position that any kselftest script on linux-next or a future > kernel should never break stable implicate that *any* fix going upstream for > which there is a respective ksefltest test *must* have a stable upstream

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a > design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace. After determining > that fixing it solved a bunch of problems and didn't break any user > programs, we

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Greg, for context, the issue here is that we made what was arguably a > design error in seccomp's interaction with ptrace. After determining > that fixing it solved a bunch of problems and didn't break any user > programs, we

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:40:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Shuah, On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Shuah, On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 10:02 PM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > On 23 June 2017 at 01:53, Shuah Khan wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 10:02 PM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > On 23 June 2017 at 01:53, Shuah Khan wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Shuah, On 23 June 2017 at 01:53, Shuah Khan wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Shuah, On 23 June 2017 at 01:53, Shuah Khan wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >>> On

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal > >>> wrote: > Hi

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Tom, On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Tom, On 06/22/2017 01:48 PM, Tom Gall wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 11:50 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Kees, Andy, >

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal >>> wrote: Hi Kees,

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal >>> wrote: Hi Kees, Andy, On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote:

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal >> wrote: >>> Hi Kees, Andy, >>> >>> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote:

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal >> wrote: >>> Hi Kees, Andy, >>> >>> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3]

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> Hi Kees, Andy, >> >> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: >>> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >>> feature

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> Hi Kees, Andy, >> >> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: >>> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >>> feature and test together. >>> - This one also seems like

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Kees, Andy, > > On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >> feature and test together. >> - This one also seems like

Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Kees, Andy, > > On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >> feature and test together. >> - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the >>

seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Kees, Andy, On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: > 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - > feature and test together. > - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the > 'feature' could be a candidate for stable

seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures]

Hi Kees, Andy, On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal wrote: > 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - > feature and test together. > - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the > 'feature' could be a candidate for stable backports, but Arnd tried >

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 47e0bbb7fa98 (test: firmware_class: report errors properly on failure) > > Hrm, come to think of it, this *might* have been a stable fix, however the > fix did not mention any specific about real issue with this.

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 47e0bbb7fa98 (test: firmware_class: report errors properly on failure) > > Hrm, come to think of it, this *might* have been a stable fix, however the > fix did not mention any specific about real issue with this. Kees? This was mostly

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:55:01PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Some of

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:55:01PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Some of

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > > > existing APIs in older

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > > > existing APIs in older

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an > > example. There are a

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an > > example. There are a

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an > example. There are a series of test cases later added which could help > test LTS kernels. Would

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an > example. There are a series of test cases later added which could help > test LTS kernels. Would

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: Hello Greg, Shuah, While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest,

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: Hello Greg, Shuah, While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest,

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:29:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. > > Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:29:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. > > Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. > Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. > Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:08:04PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > Thanks, this was quite helpful, and so now bpf tests build on x86_64 > with current mainline for me. Perhaps we should document these > somewhere, as dependencies? > There is already some documentation available[0], but something

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:08:04PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > Thanks, this was quite helpful, and so now bpf tests build on x86_64 > with current mainline for me. Perhaps we should document these > somewhere, as dependencies? > There is already some documentation available[0], but something

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, To be clear it seems like you are taking the latest upstream

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below. Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, To be clear it seems like you are taking the latest upstream

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Alexander, On 16 June 2017 at 12:44, Alexander Alemayhu wrote: > Last time I saw similar kinds of errors gcc libraries were missing. > Can you try rerunning after > > apt-get install -y gcc-multilib g++-multilib Thanks, this was quite helpful, and so now bpf tests

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Alexander, On 16 June 2017 at 12:44, Alexander Alemayhu wrote: > Last time I saw similar kinds of errors gcc libraries were missing. > Can you try rerunning after > > apt-get install -y gcc-multilib g++-multilib Thanks, this was quite helpful, and so now bpf tests build on x86_64 with

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > make headers_install was missing, but it still didn't improve the > build - here's the pastebin: https://paste.debian.net/971652/ > Last time I saw similar kinds of errors gcc libraries were missing. Can you try rerunning after

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > make headers_install was missing, but it still didn't improve the > build - here's the pastebin: https://paste.debian.net/971652/ > Last time I saw similar kinds of errors gcc libraries were missing. Can you try rerunning after

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Alexander, On 16 June 2017 at 04:35, Alexander Alemayhu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> >> 4. bpf tests: These seem to have build failures in mainline as well - >> I also tried to build kselftest-next, but a simple 'make -C >>

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Alexander, On 16 June 2017 at 04:35, Alexander Alemayhu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> >> 4. bpf tests: These seem to have build failures in mainline as well - >> I also tried to build kselftest-next, but a simple 'make -C >>

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > 4. bpf tests: These seem to have build failures in mainline as well - > I also tried to build kselftest-next, but a simple 'make -C > tools/testing/selftests/bpf' seems to error out. Are there any special > instructions to build

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > 4. bpf tests: These seem to have build failures in mainline as well - > I also tried to build kselftest-next, but a simple 'make -C > tools/testing/selftests/bpf' seems to error out. Are there any special > instructions to build

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Sumit, On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, we > found a couple more test failures due to test-kernel mismatch: > > 1. firmware tests: - linux 4.5 [1] and 4.10 [2] added a few updates to > tests,

Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hi Sumit, On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hello Greg, Shuah, > > While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, we > found a couple more test failures due to test-kernel mismatch: > > 1. firmware tests: - linux 4.5 [1] and 4.10 [2] added a few updates to > tests,

LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hello Greg, Shuah, While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, we found a couple more test failures due to test-kernel mismatch: 1. firmware tests: - linux 4.5 [1] and 4.10 [2] added a few updates to tests, and related updates to lib/test_firmware.c to improve the tests.

LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

Hello Greg, Shuah, While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest, we found a couple more test failures due to test-kernel mismatch: 1. firmware tests: - linux 4.5 [1] and 4.10 [2] added a few updates to tests, and related updates to lib/test_firmware.c to improve the tests.