linux-kernel - Re: mainline: qemu_arm64 boot failed - Failed to start Hostname Service

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:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:24:50 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: mainline: qemu_arm64 boot failed - Failed to start Hostname
 Service - Stopped Serial Getty on ttyAMA0

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 13:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > > That's a lot of userspace logs, any kernel logs showing that anything
> > > failed?
> >
> > I do not see kernel logs failures here.
>
> Great, then the kernel is working just fine!  :)
>
> Seriously, without some sort of hint, it's going to be impossible for us
> to know what to do here...

Ander is bisecting this problem.

OTOH, I am looking into test history and found the head commit is booting pass.
The problem report I have sent is a head-1 test report.

This means that, current Linus master boot pass.

Do you see any relation of top fix commit vs the report I sent.

BAD: 965181d7ef7e (head -1 )
GOOD: d888c83fcec75194a8 ( head)

git log 965181d7ef7e..d888c83fcec75194a8

commit d888c83fcec75194a8a48ccd283953bdba7b2550 (HEAD -> linux-master,
linux/master)
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue Mar 29 23:29:18 2022 -0700

    fs: fix fd table size alignment properly

    Jason Donenfeld reports that my commit 1c24a186398f ("fs: fd tables have
    to be multiples of BITS_PER_LONG") doesn't work, and the reason is an
    embarrassing brown-paper-bag bug.

    Yes, we want to align the number of fds to BITS_PER_LONG, and yes, the
    reason they might not be aligned is because the incoming 'max_fd'
    argument might not be aligned.

    But aligining the argument - while simple - will cause a "infinitely
    big" maxfd (eg NR_OPEN_MAX) to just overflow to zero.  Which most
    definitely isn't what we want either.

    The obvious fix was always just to do the alignment last, but I had
    moved it earlier just to make the patch smaller and the code look
    simpler.  Duh.  It certainly made _me_ look simple.

    Fixes: 1c24a186398f ("fs: fd tables have to be multiples of BITS_PER_LONG")
    Reported-and-tested-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
    Cc: Fedor Pchelkin <aissur0002@...il.com>
    Cc: Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
    Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

- Naresh