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

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

So this means that only the connect01 test experienced failures?

>>  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

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com