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=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 688A6C433ED for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26D98611C2 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 26D98611C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.128162.240651 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liaxi-00089i-RE; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:02 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 128162.240651; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liaxi-00089b-ON; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:02 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 128162; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:01 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liaxh-000892-9G for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:59:01 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 0ed95dc4-2799-4b56-b405-4659370b0ae7; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31039AE89; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:58:54 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 0ed95dc4-2799-4b56-b405-4659370b0ae7 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1621249134; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PRce/xL7hdszTFBxalqPXo3Pbt1l/3oKPkY+6zNLqOY=; b=CRkUpWSgK0JhPft+XYOuXWj+QkwoTvfTXDQvOII5GP5o8wKdRfcwgnVLgRejhbv4ZfMIyX /d5kcB+NynVdP2Xo3uCvk6BGZqOmojj7/Zor+YzSQDeZZO9f6T0DzlrBR+VJyYJhYSWOxk LTUamU+dIEs5juTtRJNpC48j+bjmmnk= Subject: Re: Regressed XSA-286, was [xen-unstable test] 161917: regressions - FAIL From: Jan Beulich To: Andrew Cooper Cc: osstest service owner , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Jackson References: <7cfa28ae-2fbe-0945-8a6c-a965ec52155f@citrix.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:59:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 17.05.2021 10:43, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.05.2021 22:15, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Second, the unexplained OSSTest behaviour. >> >> When I repro'd this on pinot1, test-pv32pae-xsa-286 failing was totally >> deterministic and repeatable (I tried 100 times because the test is a >> fraction of a second). >> >> From the log trawling which Ian already did, the first recorded failure >> was flight 160912 on April 11th.  All failures (12, but this number is a >> few flights old now) were on pinot*. >> >> What would be interesting to see is whether there have been any passes >> on pinot since 160912. >> >> I can't see any reason why the test would be reliable for me, but >> unreliable for OSSTest, so I'm wondering whether it is actually >> reliable, and something is wrong with the stickiness heuristic. > > Isn't (un)reliability of this test, besides the sensitivity to IRQs > and context switches, tied to hardware behavior, in particular TLB > capacity and replacement policy? Aiui the test has > > xtf_success("Success: Probably not vulnerable to XSA-286\n"); > > for the combination of all of these reasons. I've just done a dozen runs on my Skylake - all reported SUCCESS. Jan