On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 13:34, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 01:32 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 16:30, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 16:00, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:49:31PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 23:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.15 release. > > > > > > > There are 42 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > > > > > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > > > > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Responses should be made by Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:06:43 +0000. > > > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.15-rc1.gz > > > > > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y > > > > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > Regression found on Linux version 6.1.15-rc1 on 32-bit arm x15 and i386. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Build > > > > > > * kernel: 6.1.15-rc1 > > > > > > * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc > > > > > > * git branch: linux-6.1.y > > > > > > * git commit: b6150251d4ddf8a80510c185d839631e252e6317 > > > > > > * git describe: v6.1.14-43-gb6150251d4dd > > > > > > * test details: > > > > > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.14-43-gb6150251d4dd > > > > > > > > > > > > Regression test cases, > > > > > > i386: > > > > > > x15: > > > > > > * kselftest-net-mptcp/net_mptcp_mptcp_sockopt_sh > > > > > > > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > > > > > > > test log: > > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > > > > > > > # selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_sockopt.sh > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > Nit, wrapping a log like this makes it hard to read, don't you think? > > > > > > > > Me either. > > > > That is the reason I have shared "Assertion" above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # mptcp_sockopt: mptcp_sockopt.c:353: do_getsockopt_tcp_info: > > > > > > Assertion `ti.d.size_user == sizeof(struct tcp_info)' failed. > > > > > > # server killed by signal 6 > > > > > > # > > > > > > # FAIL: SOL_MPTCP getsockopt > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -t tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -6 -t tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -r tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -6 -r tcp > > > > > > # PASS: TCP_INQ cmsg/ioctl -r tcp -t tcp > > > > > > not ok 6 selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_sockopt.sh # exit=1 > > > > > > > > > > Any chance you can bisect? > > > > > > > > We are running our bisection scripts. > > > > > > We have tested with 6.1.14 kselftests source again and it passes. > > > Now that we have upgraded to 6.2.1 kselftests source, we find that > > > there is this problem reported. so, not a kernel regression. > > > > I read the above as you are running self-tests from 6.2.1 on top of an > > older (6.1) kernel. Is that correct? > > correct. > > > If so failures are expected; Shouldn't the test be able to know that "new features" are not present and properly skip the test for when that happens? Otherwise this feels like a problem going forward as no one will know if this feature can be used or not (assuming it is a new feature and not just a functional change.) thanks, greg k-h
