From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Chamberlain Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:19 +0000 Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s Message-Id: <20200624161319.GM13911@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <20200610154923.27510-5-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20200623141157.5409-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <3118dc0d-a3af-9337-c897-2380062a8644@de.ibm.com> <20200624120546.GC4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> In-Reply-To: <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> To: Christian Borntraeger , Andrew Morton , Martin Doucha , hch@infradead.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, bfields@fieldses.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, chainsaw@gentoo.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, chuck.lever@oracle.com, davem@davemloft.net, dhowells@redhat.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, keescook@chromium.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, ravenexp@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, serge@hallyn.com, slyfox@gentoo.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@loongson.cn, netdev@vger.kernel.org, markward@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390 On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:17:25PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > I found however an LTP bug indicating the need to test for > s390 wait macros [0] in light of a recent bug in glibc for s390. > I am asking for references to that issue given I cannot find > any mention of this on glibc yet. > > [0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605 I looked into this and the bug associated was: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id613 The commit in question was upstream glibc commit b49ab5f4503f36dcbf43f821f817da66b2931fe6 ("Remove union wait [BZ #19613]"), and while I don't see anything s390 mentioned there, the issue there was due to the caller of the wait using a long instead of an int for the return value. In other words, that'd not the droid we are looking for. So the issue is something else. Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EDDC433E0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1627620738 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593015208; bh=EzopEqnJeMgeCHm0zQysgkQTMd5n8/Hwr0qUh2+OHbY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=lYQRwuN49YFEgfUhDlqUBanpJE/b1UNcnnVazaUalW8HyYV0SnX5qD6b/yRjbSecM QYMXTZNea/Z7csPITQoyD4RFNowT6DEP5ApYNSqpEqT9PJQw0t9R4sKDrlMR0s3Rig Y53URYud51ucefKBA9EbZd2zcVOLP1gF357WrHa4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404764AbgFXQNZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:13:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com ([209.85.215.196]:36854 "EHLO mail-pg1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404235AbgFXQNW (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:13:22 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p3so1644502pgh.3; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=K5HA5pFN0d7RWrFcMOeZ4eZsZOCwgkaKOKIyoGUunJA=; b=bdoNe4HE152P67bqB4iz1TVFpSLKd5OLRNA8ZPD4Nx764LgDhIOQkoCOwpgshVPUlC xmAg1IjdbKAPc58tpiZ8kPqndDxtcQp+nCYHryf0E8MEDiKgH67xMVcz0VOB2dfV7Sm6 SSZylCQCalt5a0mIATsr/DE7qglta/VKXnlUTkoqBpLAaMN00mnqQvEluSEBNwbz+CJ3 1fOqyTjFmJ7xWRUx0ARAvF9C/YqItCR2X3K96qaqvoIBmg7cw8LJauxlCcvMMIC+vcXl GueZuSNQT2PqCZ+Vnlfd+9GaY6WO0xQeVlIrUK+jiz34ZIOzPCztqXShzjbigNDuaHva EhKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BWTz6jecWjjEW9ugvC/+O+rhqZas0ZaHsC7I6Ld8MngXestOd 7YAHw2WExEfmE7ca6pnvb0M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxE1ygpkPiPc7c+3/yQpwGQm5PBcnPHrRJMZIslGuNTvYjGLTfGT0VAXd0ojktX0RNgdf5uBw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:7f5a:: with SMTP id p26mr15162576pgn.117.1593015201848; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 42.do-not-panic.com (42.do-not-panic.com. [157.230.128.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 23sm20626008pfy.199.2020.06.24.09.13.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 42.do-not-panic.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B918940430; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:19 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Christian Borntraeger , Andrew Morton , Martin Doucha , hch@infradead.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, bfields@fieldses.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, chainsaw@gentoo.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, chuck.lever@oracle.com, davem@davemloft.net, dhowells@redhat.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, keescook@chromium.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, ravenexp@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, serge@hallyn.com, slyfox@gentoo.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@loongson.cn, netdev@vger.kernel.org, markward@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390 Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected) Message-ID: <20200624161319.GM13911@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200610154923.27510-5-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20200623141157.5409-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <3118dc0d-a3af-9337-c897-2380062a8644@de.ibm.com> <20200624120546.GC4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:17:25PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > I found however an LTP bug indicating the need to test for > s390 wait macros [0] in light of a recent bug in glibc for s390. > I am asking for references to that issue given I cannot find > any mention of this on glibc yet. > > [0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605 I looked into this and the bug associated was: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19613 The commit in question was upstream glibc commit b49ab5f4503f36dcbf43f821f817da66b2931fe6 ("Remove union wait [BZ #19613]"), and while I don't see anything s390 mentioned there, the issue there was due to the caller of the wait using a long instead of an int for the return value. In other words, that'd not the droid we are looking for. So the issue is something else. Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Luis Chamberlain Message-ID: <20200624161319.GM13911@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200610154923.27510-5-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20200623141157.5409-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <3118dc0d-a3af-9337-c897-2380062a8644@de.ibm.com> <20200624120546.GC4332@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> Subject: Re: [Bridge] linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected) List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:13:23 -0000 To: Christian Borntraeger , Andrew Morton , Martin Doucha , hch@infradead.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, dhowells@redhat.com, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, yangtiezhu@loongson.cn, linux-s390 , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, jmorris@namei.org, kuba@kernel.org, serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, slyfox@gentoo.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, axboe@kernel.dk, bfields@fieldses.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chainsaw@gentoo.org, ravenexp@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, markward@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, davem@davemloft.net On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:17:25PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > I found however an LTP bug indicating the need to test for > s390 wait macros [0] in light of a recent bug in glibc for s390. > I am asking for references to that issue given I cannot find > any mention of this on glibc yet. > > [0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605 I looked into this and the bug associated was: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19613 The commit in question was upstream glibc commit b49ab5f4503f36dcbf43f821f817da66b2931fe6 ("Remove union wait [BZ #19613]"), and while I don't see anything s390 mentioned there, the issue there was due to the caller of the wait using a long instead of an int for the return value. In other words, that'd not the droid we are looking for. So the issue is something else. Luis