On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 08:42 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.o > rg> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was running LTP's testcase connect01 [1] and found a regression > > in linux-next > > (next-20180301). Bisect gave me this patch as the problematic > > patch (sha > > d452930fd3b9 "selinux: Add SCTP support") on a x86 target. > > > > Output from the test(LTP release 20180118): > > $ cd /opt/ltp/ > > $ cat runtest/syscalls |grep connect01>runtest/connect-syscall > > $ ./runltp -pq -f connect-syscall > > " > > Running tests....... > > connect01 1 TPASS : bad file descriptor successful > > connect01 2 TPASS : invalid socket buffer successful > > connect01 3 TPASS : invalid salen successful > > connect01 4 TPASS : invalid socket successful > > connect01 5 TPASS : already connected successful > > connect01 6 TPASS : connection refused successful > > connect01 7 TFAIL : connect01.c:146: invalid address family ; > > returned -1 (expected -1), errno 22 (expected 97) > > INFO: ltp-pan reported some tests FAIL > > LTP Version: 20180118 > > " > > > > The output from the test expected 97 and we received 22, can you > > please > > elaborate on what have been changed? > > > > Cheers, > > Anders > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20180118/testcas > > es/kernel/syscalls/connect/connect01.c#L146 > > Hi Anders, > > Thanks for the report. Out of curiosity, we're you running the full > LTP test suite and this was the only failure, or did you just run the > connect01 test? Either answer is fine, I'm just trying to understand > the scope of the regression. > > Richard, are you able to look into this? If not, let me know and > I'll > dig a bit deeper (I'll likely take a quick look today, but if the > failure is subtle it might require some digging). I'll have a look today. >
