linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 16/16] ARM: Remove custom IRQ stat accounting

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

Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:45 +0100
From:   Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernelci-results@...ups.io, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/16] ARM: Remove custom IRQ stat accounting

On 24/09/2020 14:34, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Guillaume,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:01 AM Guillaume Tucker
> <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
> 
>> This appears to be causing a NULL pointer dereference on
>> beaglebone-black, it got bisected automatically several times.
>> None of the other platforms in the KernelCI labs appears to be
>> affected.
> 
> Actually imx53-qsb is also affected:
> https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20200924/arm/imx_v6_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-pengutronix/baseline-imx53-qsrb.html
> 
> kernelci marks it Boot result: PASS though.
> 
> Shouldn't kernelci flag a warning or error instead?

Thanks for bringing this up.  The status in the HTML log file is
a very coarse one, in this case the board booted "fine" since it
reached a login prompt.  The issue was detected later when
checking for errors in the kernel log.

But yes you're right, the issue is also impacting imx53-qsrb
indeed.  I didn't spot that because it was only reported as a
regression on staging.kernelci.org, whereas imx53-qsrb is in the
Pengutronix lab which is not sending results there at the moment.

The failures can be found on the production web dashboard though,
but not as regressions:

beaglebone-black:

  https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5f6c7f1ab7c8c5472cbf9de9/

imx53-qsrb:

  https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5f6c7ea6f89a9d0f4dbf9ddf/


I need to investigate why that is the case, knowing that the
regression was detected correctly on staging which is the
development KernelCI instance:

  https://staging.kernelci.org/test/plan/id/5f6bea67f724eb1b34dce581/


Thanks,
Guillaume