linux-kernel - Re: LTP: list of failures on 32bit and compat mode

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: <20230412071452.GD1949572@pevik>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:14:52 +0200
From:   Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To:     Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        chrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland@...aro.org>,
        Tudor Cretu <tudor.cretu@....com>
Subject: Re: LTP: list of failures on 32bit and compat mode

> Hello!

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 16:08, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz> wrote:

> > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 16:26, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz> wrote:

> > > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > > > Following LTP syscalls failed on the i386 and arm environments with
> > > > > > Linux next / mainline kernels. The userspace is coming from Open
> > > > > > Embedded kirkstone.

> > > > > Thanks for the report and summary! I went through the list and found
> > > > > that most if not all of the bugs looks like incompatibilities
> > > > > with musl, not with 32-bit. It's probably not well tested with
> > > > > musl.

> > > > > Can you try again with glibc and see if there are any remaining
> > > > > issues then? LTP should probably be fixed to work with both, but
> > > > > if nobody has done that so far, it's likely that this has come
> > > > > up in the past but ran into problems upstreaming the fixes.

> > > > > > Anyone seeing this problem on 32-bit i386 or arm ?
> > > > > > You get to see "segfault" in the following logs that have been noticed
> > > > > > on i386 only.

> > > > > > This is not a new problem. We have been noticing these failures for a
> > > > > > really long time.
> > > > > > Would it be worth investigating the reason for failures on 32bit architectures ?

> > > > > > Test logs,
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Linux version 6.3.0-rc5-next-20230406 (tuxmake@...make)
> > > > > > (i686-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 11.3.0-11) 11.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils
> > > > > > for Debian) 2.40) #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC @1680759389


> > > > > > Test environment: i386
> > > > > > Suite: ltp-syscalls
> > > > > > Toolchain: gcc-11


> > > > > > fstatfs02
> > > > > > fstatfs02    1  TPASS  :  expected failure - errno = 9 : Bad file descriptor
> > > > > > fstatfs02    2  TBROK  :  tst_sig.c:232: unexpected signal SIGSEGV(11)
> > > > > > received (pid = 17841).
> > > > > > fstatfs02    3  TBROK  :  tst_sig.c:232: Remaining cases broken
> > > > This is IMHO using the old LTP API.
> > > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/fstatfs/fstatfs02.c was converted to new LTP API in
> > > > 5a8f89d35 ("syscalls/statfs02, fstatfs02: Convert to new API"), which was
> > > > released in 20220930. There is already newer release 20230127.
> > > > Generally it's safer to test mainline kernel with LTP master,
> > > > but this fix has already been in the latest LTP release 20230127.
> > > > And this error has been later fixed with
> > > > 492542072 ("syscalls/statfs02, fstatfs02: Accept segfault instead of EFAULT")
> > I'm sorry, I was wrong stating that unexpected signal SIGSEGV(11)
> > error was fixed by 492542072.

> > > Thanks for insite about the failed test investigations.


> > > > @Naresh which LTP do you use for testing? It must be some older LTP :(.

> > > Our build system started running LTP version 20230127.
> > I'm sorry, I obviously misinterpreted the test output as old LTP code.

> No, you were right! We were running an older version and because of
> this discussion we have now updated to 20230127 in Kirkstone. This
> update from Naresh and these findings are with 20230127.

Great, thank you! Using the latest release (or git master) really saves of all
of us.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Thanks for looking into this! Greetings!

> Daniel Díaz
> daniel.diaz@...aro.org