[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4bUu=wVhH8AweOPycEw2QsbFWSjP8ytr7SM6Z5WLOdWsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2023 11:36:26 +0200
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/percpu] [x86/percpu] ca42563486: BUG:kernel_failed_in_early-boot_stage,last_printk:Booting_the_kernel(entry_offset:#)
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 8:16 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed "BUG:kernel_failed_in_early-boot_stage,last_printk:Booting_the_kernel(entry_offset:#)" on:
>
> commit: ca4256348660cb2162668ec3d13d1f921d05374a ("x86/percpu: Use C for percpu read/write accessors")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/percpu
>
> [test failed on linux-next/master 0f0fe5040de5e5fd9b040672e37725b046e312f0]
>
> in testcase: boot
>
> compiler: gcc-12
> test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
>
> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> | | 9a462b9eaf | ca42563486 |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> | boot_successes | 13 | 0 |
> | boot_failures | 0 | 13 |
> | BUG:kernel_failed_in_early-boot_stage,last_printk:Booting_the_kernel(entry_offset:#) | 0 | 13 |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
Since this is a randconfig (x86_64-randconfig-006-20231006), does it
mean that all other configs worked OK:
i386 allmodconfig gcc
i386 allnoconfig gcc
i386 allyesconfig gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-001-20231005 gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-002-20231005 gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-003-20231005 gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-004-20231005 gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-005-20231005 gcc
i386 buildonly-randconfig-006-20231005 gcc
i386 debian-10.3 gcc
i386 defconfig gcc
i386 randconfig-001-20231005 gcc
i386 randconfig-002-20231005 gcc
i386 randconfig-003-20231005 gcc
i386 randconfig-004-20231005 gcc
i386 randconfig-005-20231005 gcc
i386 randconfig-006-20231005 gcc
and
x86_64 allnoconfig gcc
x86_64 allyesconfig gcc
x86_64 defconfig gcc
x86_64 randconfig-001-20231005 gcc
x86_64 randconfig-002-20231005 gcc
x86_64 randconfig-003-20231005 gcc
x86_64 randconfig-004-20231005 gcc
x86_64 randconfig-005-20231005 gcc
x86_64 randconfig-006-20231005 gcc
x86_64 rhel-8.3-rust clang
x86_64 rhel-8.3 gcc
are of interest to me. Assuming they are built with gcc-12, I wouldn't
immediately blame the compiler for the failure. Due to the nature of
the change, perhaps a weakness in the kernel has been found with some
obscure config setting. As said, my default Fedora 39 kernel (6.5.5),
built with gcc-13 works without any problems.
Also, does a successful report from yesterday [1] mean everything was OK?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202310060322.yeZgaj6Q-lkp@intel.com/
Uros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists