On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 05:30:53PM -0700, Paul Walmsley 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/ > > > > 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? > > > > 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>. > > So, the original email says the riscv series is tested on top of 5.2-rc7, > but just for fun, can you confirm that you're building a tree that includes > 9dd3fcb0ab73 ("selftests/seccomp: Handle namespace failures gracefully")? I > assume it does, but I suspect something similar is happening, where the > environment is slightly different than expected and the test stalls. > > Does it behave the same way under emulation (i.e. can I hope to > reproduce this myself?) This was tested in 5.2-rc7 and later in 5.3-rc with the same behavior. Also VM or physical HW doesn't matter, same result. > > -- > Kees Cook
