Martin, your eyeballs would be appreciated for a bit on this. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:11:54PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 23.06.20 16:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 23.06.20 16:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > >> Jens Markwardt reported a regression in the linux-next runs. with "umh: fix > > >> processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" (from linux-next) a linux bridge > > >> with an KVM guests no longer activates : > > >> > > >> without patch > > >> # ip addr show dev virbr1 > > >> 6: virbr1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000 > > >> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > >> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1 > > >> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > >> > > >> with this patch the bridge stays DOWN with NO-CARRIER > > >> > > >> # ip addr show dev virbr1 > > >> 6: virbr1: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000 > > >> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > >> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1 > > >> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > >> > > >> This was bisected in linux-next. Reverting from linux-next also fixes the issue. > > >> > > >> Any idea? > > > > > > FWIW, s390 is big endian. Maybe some of the shifts inn the __KW* macros are wrong. > > > > Does anyone have an idea why "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" breaks the > > linux-bridge on s390? > > glibc for instance defines __WEXITSTATUS in only one location: bits/waitstatus.h > and it does not special case it per architecture, so at this point I'd > have to say we have to look somewhere else for why this is happening. 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. I'm in hopes Martin might be aware of that mentioned s390 glic bug. [0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605 Luis
