Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: add support for SECCOMP and SECCOMP_FILTER

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:30 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>
> > There is one failing kernel selftest: global.user_notification_signal
>
> Is this the only failing test?  Or are the rest of the selftests skipped
> when this test fails, and no further tests are run, as seems to be shown
> here:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CADnnUqcmDMRe1f+3jG8SPR6jRrnBsY8VVD70VbKEm0NqYeoicA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Yes, it's a single test failing. After removing global.user_notification_signal
test everything else pass and you get the results printed.

>
> For example, looking at the source, I'd naively expect to see the
> user_notification_closed_listener test result -- which follows right
> after the failing test in the selftest source.  But there aren't any
> results?

Yes, it hangs at this point. You have to manually terminate it.

>
> Also - could you follow up with the author of this failing test to see if
> we can get some more clarity about what might be going wrong here?  It
> appears that the failing test was added in commit 6a21cc50f0c7f ("seccomp:
> add a return code to trap to userspace") by Tycho Andersen
> <tycho@xxxxxxxx>.

Well the code states ".. and hope that it doesn't break when there
is actually a signal :)". Maybe we are just unlucky. I don't have results
from other architectures to compare.

I found that Linaro is running selftests, but SECCOMP is disabled
and thus it's failing. Is there another CI which tracks selftests?

https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-oe/tests/kselftest/seccomp_seccomp_bpf?top=next-20190823

>
>
> - Paul