From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
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 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:17:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200624120546.GC4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
Martin, your eyeballs would be appreciated for a bit on this.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:11:54PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 23.06.20 16:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23.06.20 16:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >> Jens Markwardt reported a regression in the linux-next runs. with "umh: fix
> > >> processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" (from linux-next) a linux bridge
> > >> with an KVM guests no longer activates :
> > >>
> > >> without patch
> > >> # ip addr show dev virbr1
> > >> 6: virbr1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
> > >> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > >> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
> > >> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
> > >>
> > >> with this patch the bridge stays DOWN with NO-CARRIER
> > >>
> > >> # ip addr show dev virbr1
> > >> 6: virbr1: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000
> > >> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > >> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
> > >> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
> > >>
> > >> This was bisected in linux-next. Reverting from linux-next also fixes the issue.
> > >>
> > >> Any idea?
> > >
> > > FWIW, s390 is big endian. Maybe some of the shifts inn the __KW* macros are wrong.
> >
> > Does anyone have an idea why "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" breaks the
> > linux-bridge on s390?
>
> glibc for instance defines __WEXITSTATUS in only one location: bits/waitstatus.h
> and it does not special case it per architecture, so at this point I'd
> have to say we have to look somewhere else for why this is happening.
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.
I'm in hopes Martin might be aware of that mentioned s390 glic bug.
[0] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/605
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-24 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-10 15:49 [PATCH 0/5] kmod/umh: a few fixes Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-10 15:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] selftests: kmod: Use variable NAME in kmod_test_0001() Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-10 15:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] kmod: Remove redundant "be an" in the comment Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-10 15:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] test_kmod: Avoid potential double free in trigger_config_run_type() Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-10 15:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-23 14:11 ` linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected) Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-23 14:23 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 11:11 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 12:05 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-24 13:17 ` Luis Chamberlain [this message]
2020-06-24 16:13 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-24 14:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-24 15:54 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 16:09 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-24 17:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 18:09 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 18:32 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-24 18:37 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-25 13:26 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-26 2:54 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-26 5:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-26 9:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-26 11:40 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-26 11:50 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-30 17:57 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-01 10:08 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-01 13:24 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-07-01 13:53 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-01 14:08 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-07-01 15:38 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-01 15:48 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-01 15:58 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-01 16:01 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-02 4:26 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-07-02 19:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-03 0:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-07-03 13:28 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-07-01 15:26 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-01 13:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-10 15:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] selftests: simplify kmod failure value Luis R. Rodriguez
2020-06-18 0:43 ` [PATCH 0/5] kmod/umh: a few fixes Andrew Morton
2020-06-19 20:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-06-19 21:07 ` Luis Chamberlain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200624131725.GL13911@42.do-not-panic.com \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chainsaw@gentoo.org \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lars.ellenberg@linbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markward@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mdoucha@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=philipp.reisner@linbit.com \
--cc=ravenexp@gmail.com \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=slyfox@gentoo.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).