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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aC48fFyR1NN4RPz8@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:50:04 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
	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 05:47:50PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, that was my concern too.  I'm fine with having it in perf test and
skip older kernels though.

> 
> 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'.

+1.

Thanks,
Namhyung