On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1 March 2018 at 14:42, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> 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/testcases/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? > > Normally we run all syscalls, but when we saw this regression I did the > bisect and only ran test connect01. > On every new push we ran 19 different sets of LTP tests, where > connect01 is part of the syscalls test set. So this means that only the connect01 test experienced failures? >> 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). >> >> -- >> paul moore >> www.paul-moore.com -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
