linux-kernel - Re: Kunit drm_test_check_plane_state: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_plane_helper

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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:42:49 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        regressions@...ts.linux.dev, davidgow@...gle.com,
        maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, tzimmermann@...e.de,
        airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Kunit drm_test_check_plane_state: EXPECTATION FAILED at
 drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_plane_helper_test.c:123

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:33:28AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/5/2023 3:46 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:05:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:37:05AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > Hi Naresh,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the report
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:05:36PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > > The Kunit drm_plane_helper failed on all devices running Linux next-20231204
> > > > > 
> > > > > ## Test Regressions (compared to next-20231201)
> > > > > * qemu-armv7, kunit and
> > > > > * x86, kunit
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_downscaling_invalid
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_drm_plane_helper
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_positioning_invalid
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_upscaling_invalid
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_clipping_rotate_reflect
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_clipping_simple
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_downscaling
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_drm_test_check_plane_state
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_positioning_simple
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding1
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding2
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding3
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding4
> > > > >    - drm_test_check_plane_state_upscaling
> > > > 
> > > > I found the source of failure to be f1e75da5364e ("drm/atomic: Loosen FB
> > > > atomic checks").
> > > > 
> > > > Fortunately for us, it's already been reverted yesterday for some
> > > > unrelated reason, so it should be fixed in next-20231205 onward.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, that's a bummer that these patches were reverted.  :(  The whole
> > > episode was a bit unfortunate...
> > > 
> > > Qualcom has been working on those patches for a year.  They must not be
> > > using kunit testing as part of their QC...  It's some kind of
> > > communication failure on our part.
> > 
> > That's definitely a communication failure, but that's mostly on us :)
> > 
> > The reason these patches were reverted was completely unrelated to the
> > kunit failures here: it failed the basic requirement we have on
> > intel-gpu-tools tests and open-source userspace examples for new uAPIs.
> > 
> > So whether or not kunit tests would have passed, these patches were
> > applied due to inattention and would have been reverted anyway
>
> The patches were reverted because the corresponding IGT/compositor changes
> were not posted yet. We will re-try applying once those are accepted.
> 
> Regarding KUnit tests, no we did not run this test and yes you are right, we
> were not running KUnit testing as the DRM CI mainly validates IGT.
> 
> We will certainly help to fix this failure. Most likely the KUnit tests need
> to be fixed to allow for a NULL FB.
> 
> If this is documented somewhere as a requirement, please share it and we
> should add KUnit testing to our DRM CI as well so that atleast this kind of
> failure will not repeat.

Yeah, the expectation is that all tests pass all the time. If some
change affects how tests should be written, then it should update the
tests as well.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)