linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/297] 5.15.140-rc1 review

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: <20231127155557.xv5ljrdxcfcigjfa@quack3>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:55:57 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
        jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
        conor@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, chrubis@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/297] 5.15.140-rc1 review

Hello!

On Fri 24-11-23 23:45:09, Daniel Díaz wrote:
> On 24/11/23 11:50 a. m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.140 release.
> > There are 297 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> > 
> > Responses should be made by Sun, 26 Nov 2023 17:19:17 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > 
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.15.140-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.15.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> We are noticing a regression with ltp-syscalls' preadv03:

Thanks for report!

> -----8<-----
>   preadv03 preadv03
>   preadv03_64 preadv03_64
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'b' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'b' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
> ----->8-----
> 
> This is seen in the following environments:
> * dragonboard-845c
> * juno-64k_page_size
> * qemu-arm64
> * qemu-armv7
> * qemu-i386
> * qemu-x86_64
> * x86_64-clang
> 
> and on the following RC's:
> * v5.10.202-rc1
> * v5.15.140-rc1
> * v6.1.64-rc1

Hum, even in 6.1? That's odd. Can you please test whether current upstream
vanilla kernel works for you with this test? Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR