linux-kernel - Re: Linux 6.1-rc1

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]

Message-ID: <7e5e4c7d-07f4-6ccd-6796-cd6f021f222e@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:28:53 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.1-rc1

On 10/17/22 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:35 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> Build results:
>>          total: 152 pass: 152 fail: 0
>> Qemu test results:
>>          total: 490 pass: 420 fail: 70
> 
> Strange. You claim zero build failures, but then:
> 
>> Build failures
>>
>> Building riscv:defconfig ... failed
> 
> so I think your stats may be wrong somehow ;)
> 

Puzzled ... the logs show that the builds for riscv[32/64] succeeded
with no error, but a manual build test still shows the failure.

Ah .... the build fails with gcc 11.3.0 / binutils 2.38, but passes
with gcc 11.3.0 / binutils 2.39. I had switched my builders to the
latter last night to fix a problem with powerpc builds. At the same time,
the manual test I just ran still used binutils 2.38.

That is interesting; I didn't expect that the binutils version would
make a difference, but apparently it does. Comparing defconfig:

10c10
< CONFIG_AS_VERSION=23900
---
 > CONFIG_AS_VERSION=23800
12c12
< CONFIG_LD_VERSION=23900
---
 > CONFIG_LD_VERSION=23800
260d259
< CONFIG_RISCV_DMA_NONCOHERENT=y
297,298d295
< CONFIG_CC_HAS_ZICBOM=y
< CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM=y
4134,4137d4130
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SETUP_DMA_OPS=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_DEVICE=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_CPU=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_DMA_PREP_COHERENT=y
4140,4142d4132
< CONFIG_DMA_NONCOHERENT_MMAP=y
< CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL=y
< CONFIG_DMA_DIRECT_REMAP=y

The build failure is only seen with CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM=n,
or in other words with binutils 2.38 or earlier.

>> mips, sparc64
>> -------------
>>
>> All big endian mips tests fail to reset after boot. The problem is
>> caused by commit 72a95859728a ("mfd: syscon: Remove repetition of the
>> regmap_get_val_endian()").
> 
> Bah. I had already archived that whole thread as "sorted out", but
> yeah, the revert clearly never made it to me for rc1.
> 

Yes, I saw a note along that line. The original reboot failure affected
sparc64 boot tests as well, which is gone now. Maybe some other fix for
the mips problem is in the works ?

> But it should be in the regmap queue (Lee/Andy?), so it is hopefully
> just a temporary thing.
> 
> In fact, it looks like all the failures have known fixes. So here's
> hoping that your list will be a whole lot cleaner by rc2.
> 
Hopefully yes.

Thanks,
Guenter