Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:01:27 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] tools/nolibc: tests: use volatile to force stack smashing |
| |
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 08:51:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:29:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I have queued this for the v6.5 merge window, thank you! If urgency > > does develop in the next couple of days, please let me know, and I will > > see what I can do about moving it to the v6.4 pile. > > Thank you! > > > I got this from "make run" (after merging with v6.3-rc3 as discussed > > earlier): > > > > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/git/linux-build' > > 126 test(s) passed. > > > > This differs from your results, so please see below for the run.out file. > > (I see 126 instances of "[OK]".) > > Oh you're right! I indeed found no FAIL so it was OK for me and I didn't > pay attention but it's "just" a matter of message appearing on the console > in the middle of the test: > > $ diff -u paul.out willy.out |less > --- paul.out 2023-03-28 20:38:40.079920385 +0200 > +++ willy.out 2023-03-28 20:39:04.534900530 +0200 > @@ -130,11 +130,11 @@ > Errors during this test: 0 > > Running test 'protection' > -0 -fstackprotector [OK] > +0 -fstackprotector [ 2.696920] init (47) used greatest stack depth: 14536 bytes left > + [OK] > Errors during this test: 0 > > We've had a few occurrences of garbaged outputs like this, so I think I > should improve the test to count OK/FAIL/SKIPPED so that we can be more > confident in the output when seeing 0 FAIL for example. I suspect that > above it could be related to the long chain we've seen during the 6.3-rc1 > crash, that went down into the random code, because probably that this > first-time initialization can enlarge the stack a little bit. > > In my case, I just applied all the nolibc patches on top of 6.3-rc4 to > run the test so our kernels are slightly different (since my branch > based on rcu-03.20a did still originate from the 6.3-rc1 thus it was > failing to boot like you faced previously). > > Maybe I should also improve the grep to try to look for patterns looking > exactly like this (test numer and name followed by a warning).
Good point!
> > But this from "make run-user": > > > > CC nolibc-test > > 124 test(s) passed > > > > The output of "grep -v "\[OK]" run.out" is as follows: > > > > Running test 'syscall' > > 18 chroot_root [SKIPPED] > > 43 link_dir [SKIPPED] > > Errors during this test: 0 > > > > Running test 'stdlib' > > Errors during this test: 0 > > > > Running test 'protection' > > Errors during this test: 0 > > > > Total number of errors: 0 > > Exiting with status 0 > > > > I am guessing is that this is because I am too cowardly to run this > > test with root privileges, but thought I should run it by you. > > Yes exactly, that's why I've added getuid() support lately, in order to > skip these two tests when not root (because I cowardly refuse to run > this test as root as well and don't want to get used to seeing "normal" > failures). > > Thus what you're seeing is OK overall. There's just this message that > appears now on top of -rc4, I'll retry later on top of -rc3 (probably > not before this week-end, I'm still having other stuff to do), but so > far so good.
Thank you for looking this over!
Thanx, Paul
| |