linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] genirq/test: Platform/architecture fixes

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: <CABVgOSkUT_yYqBvk2-+OozKEBybj-07mcRAVECNYQiw+1P67eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:00:34 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] genirq/test: Platform/architecture fixes

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 03:28, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> The new kunit tests at kernel/irq/irq_test.c were primarily tested on
> x86_64, with QEMU and with ARCH=um builds. Naturally, there are other
> architectures that throw complications in the mix, with various CPU
> hotplug and IRQ implementation choices.
>
> Guenter has been dutifully noticing and reporting these errors, in
> places like:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b4cf04ea-d398-473f-bf11-d36643aa50dd@roeck-us.net/
>
> I hope I've addressed all the failures, but it's hard to tell when I
> don't have cross-compilers and QEMU setups for all of these
> architectures.
>
> I've tested what I could on arm, powerpc, x86_64, and um ARCH.
>
> This series is based on David's patch for these tests:
>
> [PATCH] genirq/test: Fix depth tests on architectures with NOREQUEST by default.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250816094528.3560222-2-davidgow@google.com/
>
>

Thanks very much. These patches all look good to me, so the series is:

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

I am, however, still getting test failures on m68k (with CONFIG_VIRT=y):
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py  run --arch m68k --cross_compile
m68k-linux-gnu- irq*
[14:54:23] =============== irq_test_cases (4 subtests) ================
[14:54:23]     # irq_disable_depth_test: ASSERTION FAILED at
kernel/irq/irq_test.c:53
[14:54:23]     Expected virq >= 0, but
[14:54:23]         virq == -12 (0xfffffffffffffff4)
[14:54:23] [FAILED] irq_disable_depth_test
[14:54:23]     # irq_free_disabled_test: ASSERTION FAILED at
kernel/irq/irq_test.c:53
[14:54:23]     Expected virq >= 0, but
[14:54:23]         virq == -12 (0xfffffffffffffff4)
[14:54:23] [FAILED] irq_free_disabled_test
[14:54:23] [SKIPPED] irq_shutdown_depth_test
[14:54:23] [SKIPPED] irq_cpuhotplug_test
[14:54:23]     # module: irq_test
[14:54:23] # irq_test_cases: pass:0 fail:2 skip:2 total:4
[14:54:23] # Totals: pass:0 fail:2 skip:2 total:4
[14:54:23] ================= [FAILED] irq_test_cases ==================
[14:54:23] ============================================================
[14:54:23] Testing complete. Ran 4 tests: failed: 2, skipped: 2

Looks like __irq_alloc_descs() is returning -ENOMEM (as
irq_find_free_area() is returning 200 w/ nr_irqs == 200, and
CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ=n).

But all of the other architectures I found worked okay, so this is at
least an improvement.

Thanks,
-- David

> Brian Norris (6):
>   genirq/test: Select IRQ_DOMAIN
>   genirq/test: Factor out fake-virq setup
>   genirq/test: Fail early if we can't request an IRQ
>   genirq/test: Skip managed-affinity tests with !SPARSE_IRQ
>   genirq/test: Drop CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_MIGRATION assumptions
>   genirq/test: Ensure CPU 1 is online for hotplug test
>
>  kernel/irq/Kconfig    |  1 +
>  kernel/irq/irq_test.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.51.0.rc1.167.g924127e9c0-goog
>

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5281 bytes)