linux-kernel - Re: [-next] strace tests fail because of "y2038: socket: Add compat_sys_recvmmsg

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a239wziapVWTuPN09-FZ-fip_f3uhFD6B0=92Rw+=zWzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:14:47 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [-next] strace tests fail because of "y2038: socket: Add compat_sys_recvmmsg_time64"

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:57 AM Heiko Carstens
<heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:05:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:40 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Heiko Carstens
> > > <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Arnd,
> > > >
> > > > in linux-next as of today 16 strace self tests fail on s390. I could
> > > > bisect this to b136972b063b ("y2038: socket: Add compat_sys_recvmmsg_time64").
> > > >
> > > > The following tests fail:
> > >
> > > Hi Heiko,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the report and sorry I broke things. I'll have a closer look
> > > tomorrow if I don't find it right away. I suppose the regression was in
> > > native system calls, not the compat syscalls with 31-bit user space,
> > > right?
>
> Yes, I was talking about 64 bit native system calls.
>
> > I found a bug in my patch by inspection. Can you try if the patch
> > below makes it all work (apologies for the garbled whitespace),
> > I'm considering a rewrite of that function now (to split it into two
> > again), but want to make sure there isn't another problem in my
> > original patch.
>
> With your patch below applied, the tests pass again.

Ok, thanks for testing, I've pushed out the fixed version of that
branch now.

       Arnd