On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:05:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:40 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Heiko Carstens
> > <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Arnd,
> > >
> > > in linux-next as of today 16 strace self tests fail on s390. I could
> > > bisect this to b136972b063b ("y2038: socket: Add compat_sys_recvmmsg_time64").
> > >
> > > The following tests fail:
> >
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> > Thanks for the report and sorry I broke things. I'll have a closer look
> > tomorrow if I don't find it right away. I suppose the regression was in
> > native system calls, not the compat syscalls with 31-bit user space,
> > right?
Yes, I was talking about 64 bit native system calls.
> I found a bug in my patch by inspection. Can you try if the patch
> below makes it all work (apologies for the garbled whitespace),
> I'm considering a rewrite of that function now (to split it into two
> again), but want to make sure there isn't another problem in my
> original patch.
With your patch below applied, the tests pass again.
Thanks!
> ----
> diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
> index 3bb2ee083f97..7f9f225d0b6c 100644
> --- a/net/socket.c
> +++ b/net/socket.c
> @@ -2486,12 +2486,12 @@ int __sys_recvmmsg(int fd, struct mmsghdr __user *mmsg,
> return -EFAULT;
>
> if (!timeout && !timeout32)
> - do_recvmmsg(fd, mmsg, vlen, flags, NULL);
> + return do_recvmmsg(fd, mmsg, vlen, flags, NULL);
>
> datagrams = do_recvmmsg(fd, mmsg, vlen, flags, &timeout_sys);
>
> - if (!datagrams)
> - return 0;
> + if (datagrams <= 0)
> + return datagrams;
>
> if (timeout && put_timespec64(&timeout_sys, timeout))
> datagrams = -EFAULT;
>
