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: <aCzqdn3AJji_yPpQ@x1>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 17:47:50 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...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

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 04:31:29PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > Telling that to the user and possibly skipping the test if viable using
> > uname to get the version and if less than v6.15-rc1 print "Skip (needs
> > v6.15-rc1 or newer)" may be an option.
 
> > Then if the bug somehow reappears, people running 'perf test' will flag
> > it.
 
> Sure. Attaching a patch at the end.

Thanks, I'm applying it.

But now that I think about it, it may well be the case that, say, RHEL
backports the fixes in v6.15 for an enterprise kernel that has an
"older" version, so probably the best is for execute the test, if it
fails, then do the version check to decide if it is an unexpected
failure.

But this can be done on top, lets make progress and apply your patch.

> > And I think having it in 'perf test' as well may make the feature to be
> > tested more widely, both by those who run selftests as well as by people
> > trying just 'perf test'.
> 
> Yeah, that was precisely the reason I did it in 'perf test'.

:-)

- Arnaldo