Re: Regression found when running LTP connect01 on next-20180301

[Anders Roxell]

On 1 March 2018 at 14:42, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was running LTP's testcase connect01 [1] and found a regression in linux-next
>> (next-20180301).  Bisect gave me this patch as the problematic patch (sha
>> d452930fd3b9 "selinux: Add SCTP support") on a x86 target.
>>
>> Output from the test(LTP release 20180118):
>> $ cd /opt/ltp/
>> $ cat runtest/syscalls |grep connect01>runtest/connect-syscall
>> $ ./runltp -pq -f connect-syscall
>> "
>> Running tests.......
>> connect01    1  TPASS  :  bad file descriptor successful
>> connect01    2  TPASS  :  invalid socket buffer successful
>> connect01    3  TPASS  :  invalid salen successful
>> connect01    4  TPASS  :  invalid socket successful
>> connect01    5  TPASS  :  already connected successful
>> connect01    6  TPASS  :  connection refused successful
>> connect01    7  TFAIL  :  connect01.c:146: invalid address family ; returned -1 (expected -1), errno 22 (expected 97)
>> INFO: ltp-pan reported some tests FAIL
>> LTP Version: 20180118
>> "
>>
>> The output from the test expected 97 and we received 22, can you please
>> elaborate on what have been changed?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Anders
>> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20180118/testcases/kernel/syscalls/connect/connect01.c#L146
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> Thanks for the report.  Out of curiosity, we're you running the full
> LTP test suite and this was the only failure, or did you just run the
> connect01 test?

Normally we run all syscalls, but when we saw this regression I did the
bisect and only ran test connect01.
On every new push we ran 19 different sets of LTP tests, where
connect01 is part of the syscalls test set.

Cheers,
Anders

>  Either answer is fine, I'm just trying to understand
> the scope of the regression.
>
> Richard, are you able to look into this?  If not, let me know and I'll
> dig a bit deeper (I'll likely take a quick look today, but if the
> failure is subtle it might require some digging).
>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com