[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564119521b61b5a38f9bdfe6c7a41fcbb07049c9.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 23:28:00 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "xry111@...111.site" <xry111@...111.site>,
"andrealmeid@...lia.com" <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Several tst-robust* tests time out with recent Linux kernel
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 09:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:11:20AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 21:14 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Urgh, thanks!
> > >
> > > Confirmed, the below cures things. Although I should probably
> > > make
> > > that
> > > FLAGS_SIZE_32 | FLAGS_SHARED against Linus' tree.
> > >
> > > Let me go do a proper patch.
> >
> > I saw these fail on the glibc shadow stack branch today, and I also
> > saw
> > this one failing:
> > FAIL: nptl/tst-robustpi8
>
> tip/locking/urgent (branch with the fix on) gets me:
>
> root@...-ep:/usr/local/src/glibc# ./build/nptl/tst-robustpi8
> running child
> verifying locks
> running child
> verifying locks
> running child
> verifying locks
> running child
> verifying locks
> running child
> verifying locks
> root@...-ep:/usr/local/src/glibc#
>
> Which, to my untrained eye, looks like a pass to me.
It bisects to this for me:
fbeb558b0dd0 ("futex/pi: Fix recursive rt_mutex waiter state")
Reading the patch, I'm not immediately clear what is going on but a few
comments stood out: "There be dragons here" "What could possibly go
wrong..." "This is a somewhat dangerous proposition".
Seems a likelihood of some race, but it reproduces reliably on my
machine. Haven't dug into debugging it yet. Any pointers?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists