On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:04 PM David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:30 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote: > > > > > There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signal > > > > Is this the only failing test? Or are the rest of the selftests skipped > > when this test fails, and no further tests are run, as seems to be shown > > here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CADnnUqcmDMRe1f+3jG8SPR6jRrnBsY8VVD70VbKEm0NqYeoicA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Yes, it's a single test failing. After removing global.user_notification_signal > test everything else pass and you get the results printed. > > > > > For example, looking at the source, I'd naively expect to see the > > user_notification_closed_listener test result -- which follows right > > after the failing test in the selftest source. But there aren't any > > results? > > Yes, it hangs at this point. You have to manually terminate it. > > > > > Also - could you follow up with the author of this failing test to see if > > we can get some more clarity about what might be going wrong here? It > > appears that the failing test was added in commit 6a21cc50f0c7f ("seccomp: > > add a return code to trap to userspace") by Tycho Andersen > > <tycho@xxxxxxxx>. > > Well the code states ".. and hope that it doesn't break when there > is actually a signal :)". Maybe we are just unlucky. I don't have results > from other architectures to compare. > > I found that Linaro is running selftests, but SECCOMP is disabled > and thus it's failing. Is there another CI which tracks selftests? > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-oe/tests/kselftest/seccomp_seccomp_bpf?top=next-20190823 Actually it seems that seccomp is enabled in kernel, but not in systemd, and somehow seccomp_bpf is missing on all arches thus causing automatic failure. > > > > > > - Paul
