netdev - Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)

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: <20200624161319.GM13911@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:19 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Martin Doucha <mdoucha@...e.cz>, hch@...radead.org
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, bfields@...ldses.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, chainsaw@...too.org,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, dhowells@...hat.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, josh@...htriplett.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        lars.ellenberg@...bit.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        philipp.reisner@...bit.com, ravenexp@...il.com,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, serge@...lyn.com, slyfox@...too.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, markward@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used
 seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:17:25PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> I found however an LTP bug indicating the need to test for
> s390 wait macros [0] in light of a recent bug in glibc for s390.
> I am asking for references to that issue given I cannot find
> any mention of this on glibc yet.
> 
> [0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605

I looked into this and the bug associated was:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19613

The commit in question was upstream glibc commit
b49ab5f4503f36dcbf43f821f817da66b2931fe6 ("Remove union wait [BZ
#19613]"), and while I don't see anything s390 mentioned there,
the issue there was due to the caller of the wait using a long
instead of an int for the return value.

In other words, that'd not the droid we are looking for.

So the issue is something else.

  Luis