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: <925cb852-df24-81b6-318a-ee6a628d43c7@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:34:52 +0800
From: Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>
To: Byeonguk Jeong <jungbu2855@...il.com>,
 Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: Add a copyright notice to
 lpm_trie_map_get_next_key

Hi,

On 11/3/2024 2:04 PM, Byeonguk Jeong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The selftest "verifier_bits_iter/bad words" has been failed with
> retval 115, while I did not touched anything but a comment.
>
> Do you have any idea why it failed? I am not sure whether it indicates
> any bugs in the kernel.
>
> Best,
> Byeonguk

Sorry for the inconvenience. It seems the test case
"verifier_bits_iter/bad words" is flaky. It may fail randomly, such as
in [1]. I think calling bpf_probe_read_kernel_common() on 3GB addr under
s390 host may succeed and the content of the memory address will decide
whether the test case will succeed or not. Do not know the reason why
reading 3GB address succeeds under s390. Hope to get some insight from
Ilya.  I think we could fix the failure first by using NULL as the
address of bad words just like null_pointer test case does. Will merge
the test in bad_words into the null_pointer case.

[1]:
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11625956355/job/32377297736
>
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 04:41:26AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org wrote:
>> Dear patch submitter,
>>
>> CI has tested the following submission:
>> Status:     FAILURE
>> Name:       [bpf] selftests/bpf: Add a copyright notice to lpm_trie_map_get_next_key
>> Patchwork:  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=905730&state=*
>> Matrix:     https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11648453401
>>
>> Failed jobs:
>> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11648453401/job/32434970670
>>
>> First test_progs failure (test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc):
>> #433 verifier_bits_iter
>> tester_init:PASS:tester_log_buf 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:specs_alloc 0 nsec
>> #433/13 verifier_bits_iter/bad words
>> run_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec
>> run_subtest:PASS:unexpected_load_failure 0 nsec
>> do_prog_test_run:PASS:bpf_prog_test_run 0 nsec
>> run_subtest:FAIL:1035 Unexpected retval: 115 != 0
>>
>>
>> Please note: this email is coming from an unmonitored mailbox. If you have
>> questions or feedback, please reach out to the Meta Kernel CI team at
>> kernel-ci@...a.com.
> .


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ