On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:04 PM David Abdurachmanov
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:30 PM Paul Walmsley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote:

quoted

There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signal

Is 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.

quoted

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.

quoted

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

Actually it seems that seccomp is enabled in kernel, but not in
systemd, and somehow seccomp_bpf is missing on all arches thus
causing automatic failure.

quoted

- Paul