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 autolearn=ham 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 C2101C433E0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA8220720 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:17:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593004651; bh=86snOjR4hqyDxecZ2epb7ASiyjJfRnnwVyoYeuwlHmw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=St0sKD3JFx5l/1htES4KRLRh2oz/fopwP4BNYYMbdWYdQcu3Z1nYzom3M3vqokLvm HVaQwrpt6NPxRkuYMtTJ5aw7nWtrIQl+eKTvOLGK/dEsUu/nfdZAwvP8or1kK6lAqj 2xQduSe6xlUtGr95HS7sXsxzLZil60tltuKcxKM0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390481AbgFXNR3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:17:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f65.google.com ([209.85.216.65]:39242 "EHLO mail-pj1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728685AbgFXNR2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:17:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f65.google.com with SMTP id b92so1146276pjc.4; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:17:28 -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=AmTxCuZjvcdiVEVhuLvvhfsJ8oNVmZ/lVyIOEYHWB0Y=; b=Xc7/HPDfLjwO3vfOloH87tfQI4+HU7eSv2eJgbWB2VPf9JWtdmpEd2QXBmiJCy05dd SUFETLgRt/OctOt5l3jgTWrwYVWkWAU8Q+QsiKAPRb9F+7ugQOxyeILRtceXsv0VmKP4 VtYCRJdJqRojiwFMXqFVJ/tpocUN8g7Cr8MFuOwUM10AFQE5i3sUtlTGmGPmOFBBzN+i kB/jdQyJ0/WGTJuU62xF2LdZua+UNsDRQ7ku0j9EVHleHCUDO9GPVyjGTeCRbebME5Ie 9FeEDrpG+AADn8a8F+j4z4deipzeJi01RNzahjOH3jN2QhXTV+pnzrMRK6k8L7o6NVgw D//w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vVbPp5eIKC7CxT0QEgrf89GpuBF1Bt8bpM9ELPFqnKUFeiaEr wgVIjEamAzQeW5xiUzyrNUA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz52oTL2B/3PLmnDoI2vugPQaT+ieV89E/RBDP6y5SvM7SHzDqNhk7CAkBkvaU94q6GXPDJhQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2622:: with SMTP id l31mr29954851pje.18.1593004647767; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:17:27 -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 b71sm10617893pfb.125.2020.06.24.06.17.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 42.do-not-panic.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 46E1340430; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:17:25 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Christian Borntraeger , Andrew Morton , Martin Doucha 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: <20200624131725.GL13911@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200624120546.GC4332@42.do-not-panic.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: 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: 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