linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANDhNCreA6nJp4ZUhgcxNB5Zye1aySDoU99+_GDS57HAF4jZ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:35:04 -0700
From: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, 
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>, 
	Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the
 current thread

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:10 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03 2024 at 11:16, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:32 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronixde> wrote:
> > Thanks for this, Thomas!
> >
> > Just FYI: testing with 6.1, the test no longer hangs, but I don't see
> > the SKIP behavior. It just fails:
> > not ok 6 check signal distribution
> > # Totals: pass:5 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> >
> > I've not had time yet to dig into what's going on, but let me know if
> > you need any further details.
>
> That's weird. I ran it on my laptop with 6.1.y ...
>
> What kind of machine is that?

I was running it in a VM.

Interestingly with 64cpus it sometimes will do the skip behavior, but
with 4 cpus it seems to always fail.

thanks
-john