Re: stable/linux-4.14.y boot: 108 boots: 0 failed, 107 passed with 1 conflict (v4.14.11)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Guillaume Tucker wrote:

> On 03/01/18 03:11, kernelci.org bot wrote:
> > stable/linux-4.14.y boot: 108 boots: 0 failed, 107 passed with 1 conflict
> > (v4.14.11)
> > 
> > Full Boot Summary:
> > https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.11/
> > Full Build Summary:
> > https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.11/
> > 
> > Tree: stable
> > Branch: linux-4.14.y
> > Git Describe: v4.14.11
> > Git Commit: 0d59679df5b53755c00ea0292df696f97bfc950d
> > Git URL:
> > http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git
> > Tested: 59 unique boards, 23 SoC families, 16 builds out of 185
> > 
> > Boot Regressions Detected:
> > 
> > x86:
> > 
> >      x86_64_defconfig:
> >          qemu:
> >              lab-mhart: new failure (last pass: v4.14.10)
> > 
> > Conflicting Boot Failure Detected: (These likely are not failures as other
> > labs are reporting PASS. Needs review.)
> > 
> > x86:
> > 
> >      x86_64_defconfig:
> >          qemu:
> >              lab-mhart: FAIL
> >              lab-collabora: PASS
> 
> Well, it turns out this is not exactly a conflict as there's a
> subtle difference between the qemu devices in lab-mhart and in
> lab-collabora.  The ones in lab-collabora are configured to use
> KVM, and it looks like the ones in lab-mhart aren't.
> 
> So this job with KVM enabled passes in lab-collabora:
> 
>   https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1032358
> 
> but it fails if I tell LAVA (qemu) to disable KVM:
> 
>   https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1032359
> 
> with the same panic as in lab-mhart.  It seems like it's failing
> to return from an interrupt:
> 
>   http://lava.streamtester.net/scheduler/job/87308
> 
>   [    2.678828]  ? native_iret+0x7/0x7
>   [    2.679208] WARNING: can't dereference iret registers at 00000000ffc66068
> for ip page_fault+0x11/0x60
> 
> This triggered an automated bisection on kernelci.org, please see
> the results below.
> 
> I may run another bisection with this config enabled earlier in
> the history to track down the actual change in the code that
> introduced the issue, let me know if it's worth doing.

No, because before that commit not all pieces are in place.

Can you please try the failing kernel with pti=off on the command line?

I'll start a test instance here as well.

Thanks,

	tglx





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]