linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/47] 4.4.92-stable review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:30:34 +0100
From:   Milosz Wasilewski <milosz.wasilewski@...aro.org>
To:     Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/47] 4.4.92-stable review

On 11 October 2017 at 23:14, Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> * libhugetlbfs - 76 pass - 1 skip
>>> * ltp-cap_bounds-tests - 1 pass
>>> * ltp-commands-tests - 27 pass - 13 skip - 5 known failures (ksh not in test img)
>>> * ltp-containers-tests - 63 pass - 18 fail (these are being looked at looks like setup issues with veth0)
>>> * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - 2 pass
>>> * ltp-filecaps-tests - 2 pass
>>> * ltp-fs-tests - 61 pass - 1 skip
>>> * ltp-fs_bind-tests - 2 pass
>>> * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - 19 pass
>>> * ltp-fsx-tests - 2 pass
>>> * ltp-hugetlb-tests - 22 pass
>>> * ltp-io-tests - 3 pass
>>> * ltp-ipc-tests - 9 pass
>>> * ltp-math-tests - 11 pass
>>> * ltp-nptl-tests - 2 pass
>>> * ltp-pty-tests - 4 pass
>>> * ltp-sched-tests - 13 pass - 1 skip
>>> * ltp-securebits-tests - 4 pass
>>> * ltp-syscalls-tests - 960 pass - 164 skip - 13 known failures
>>
>> syscalls fail?  Why skip so many?
>
> The known failures are due to our x86 box using an NFS root file
> system. That won't be the case much longer.

I'm not sure that is entirely correct. The 'skip' test cases come from
LTP itself. A few examples below:

bdflush01 2 TCONF : bdflush01.c:118: syscall(-1) __NR_bdflush not
supported on your arch
bdflush01 3 TCONF : bdflush01.c:118: Remaining cases not appropriate
for configuration

cacheflush01 1 TCONF : cacheflush01.c:134: syscall(-1) __NR_cacheflush
not supported on your arch
cacheflush01 2 TCONF : cacheflush01.c:134: Remaining cases not
appropriate for configuration

chown01_16 1 TCONF :
/usr/src/debug/ltp/20170929-r0/git/testcases/kernel/syscalls/chown/../utils/compat_16.h:156:
16-bit version of chown() is not supported on your platform
chown01_16 2 TCONF :
/usr/src/debug/ltp/20170929-r0/git/testcases/kernel/syscalls/chown/../utils/compat_16.h:156:
Remaining cases not appropriate for configuration

and so on. We have the list of tests that are omitted because they
cause troubles (prevent test suite to complete). The list is 32 tests
long but it doesn't apply to x86. In theory we could prevent LTP from
running all tests that it marks 'skip', but would that help anything?

There are around 12 (maybe 13?) tests that fail because we're
runnining using NFS root filesystem. As Tom noted, this should be
fixed soon.

Best Regards,
milosz