linux-kernel - Re: IBS perf test failures on 9950x3d

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: <aColYM3RqE4T5t5c@google.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:22:24 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IBS perf test failures on 9950x3d

Hi Ravi,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 05:33:19PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Hi Arnaldo,
> 
> > If it needs a specific kernel, then the test needs to cope with that,
> > etc.
> 
> 1) Bunch of IBS kernel fixes went in recently (v6.15-rc1):
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250115054438.1021-1-ravi.bangoria@amd.com
> 
>    Since you are running on 6.14.5-300.fc42.x86_64, the failures are
>    genuine and indicating that kernel should be fixed.
> 
>    I'm wondering how would the test cope with the buggy kernel. Or
>    probably 'perf test' a wrong place to put such selftests?

Maybe... some kernel internal changes can be tested in the selftest.

And 'perf test' should work with any kernel versions.  Is the test
checking any invalid configs?  Probably then it should move to the
selftest so that it can be tied to the fixed kernels and 'perf test'
should only use valid configs.

Thanks,
Namhyung

> 
> 2) "mprotect() failed. Permission denied" seems to be because of
>    SELinux enforced mode? I'll prepare and post a fix but, even
>    with the error, it's just part of the dummy workload function
>    so wouldn't break any test functionality.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ravi