Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER
From: David Abdurachmanov <hidden>
Date: 2019-08-24 01:05:01
Also in:
bpf, linux-kselftest, linux-riscv, lkml
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:30 PM Paul Walmsley [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote:quoted
There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signalIs this the only failing test? Or are the rest of the selftests skipped when this test fails, and no further tests are run, as seems to be shown here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CADnnUqcmDMRe1f+3jG8SPR6jRrnBsY8VVD70VbKEm0NqYeoicA@mail.gmail.com/ (local)
Yes, it's a single test failing. After removing global.user_notification_signal test everything else pass and you get the results printed.
For example, looking at the source, I'd naively expect to see the user_notification_closed_listener test result -- which follows right after the failing test in the selftest source. But there aren't any results?
Yes, it hangs at this point. You have to manually terminate it.
Also - could you follow up with the author of this failing test to see if
we can get some more clarity about what might be going wrong here? It
appears that the failing test was added in commit 6a21cc50f0c7f ("seccomp:
add a return code to trap to userspace") by Tycho Andersen
[off-list ref].Well the code states ".. and hope that it doesn't break when there is actually a signal :)". Maybe we are just unlucky. I don't have results from other architectures to compare. I found that Linaro is running selftests, but SECCOMP is disabled and thus it's failing. Is there another CI which tracks selftests? https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-oe/tests/kselftest/seccomp_seccomp_bpf?top=next-20190823
- Paul