From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F50320A14 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 01:50:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790560264; cv=none; b=eXz15SZCmuyWpTnEbBxe/rvWe6j25KvoD5gD4ENjFCVnjz3PupJ4wj/eOSoGTO4dUYFzYBpbwBHpvgW/PMWxULa2CExA1NiaiKMSv/lcQmRplZrOnh3bUsbcoQSoXX2iLmPWVk0HKDU6tPPGSmDexd50vxJM5gFnde1gBiM8M20= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790560264; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SPg8cL4kmSWA4iFpN4vF6FPr47BJmWraE4GW0BtQ1YI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=EpiZuyd6KwYHhSt3ifCRRG9LCxu8AWQAgQ4kzYOXVSQuIsTBNQkxwpPvPHYfHFXjMZ3IhsDI24kKY5BhnL1RZZPJgTSyC/Q9tqTTDrU2GbM02CT/zkOFlq06UAMJ98eUcoPS4szGbEKsmYZ8BmnMmNp3OmU/3XLG55Ej+r6ZnX8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=jXAkxBob; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="jXAkxBob" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=MlSvak1ZymKa4HkDZecqOMouAzwaOxw4YrsSh//cFbo=; b=jXAkxBobyGxGl33CFWtPr+m5NrB0PXofrOayv7Y36nOMUwP82QgjZnHk7p82uMAqYOAKKpDKb 9J5LOKOsR10NLIb15FaMrOgokskOYABGrxpJOAcieGk77xYRr7Gj9MECe4Ui0VSdUVkC2O7bO9A oTmpgJFlBvhiZgV2SCcwOI8= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.104]) by canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4htP8v6cP3z1prN4; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:38:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemk200008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.194.74]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D84DF4057F; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:50:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemk200008.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.45; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:50:48 +0800 Message-ID: <7fe9a0d5-6b82-4ae5-bbdc-f74d797b2e0e@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:50:48 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 00/14] arm64: entry: Convert to Generic Entry To: Kees Cook CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20260922035510.1090299-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <202609221129.B5E13A7@keescook> <927d57a4-64ab-4420-9485-5336f2ec3fd5@huawei.com> <202609241703.4AF69048@keescook> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <202609241703.4AF69048@keescook> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.70) To kwepemk200008.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.74) 在 2026/9/25 8:05, Kees Cook 写道: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 05:32:14PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> 在 2026/9/23 2:29, Kees Cook 写道: >> I tested the rr test cases on a Kunpeng HIP09 (with minor adaptations, >> since Kunpeng CPUs aren't supported by default), and the results showed >> no regressions. > > Great! Thank you for getting that set up. > >> >> | | 7.3-rc4 baseline | Patched | >> >> | ------------ |------------------------ | ------------------------- | >> | result | 87% passed, 190 failed | 88% passed, 186 failed | >> >> >> | Failure Mode | 7.3-rc4 baseline | Patched | >> | ------------ | ---------------- | ---------- | >> | TICK_MISMATCH | 76 | 74 | >> | TIMEOUT | 68 | 65 | >> | GDB_SCRIPT | 34 | 37 | >> | PERF_EVENT_OPEN| 3 | 2 | >> | OVERSHOOT | 1 | 0 | >> | OTHER | 8 | 8 | >> | -------------- | --------------- | ---------- | >> | Total | 190 | 186 | > > GDB_SCRIPT failures went up? Are the tests just flaky? Yes, you are right! Those three tests failed in the baseline too — they just surfaced as tick mismatches then and as GDB script timeouts now, so the bucket boundary shifts with the race. That's flakiness, not a regression. | changes | testcase | | ----------------- | ---------------------------------- | | OVERSHOOT -> TICK | clone_interruption | | TICK -> GDB_SCRIPT | checkpoint_prctl_name | | TICK -> GDB_SCRIPT | checkpoint_prctl_name-no-syscallbuf | | TICK -> GDB_SCRIPT | clone_interruption-no-syscallbuf | | PERF_OPEN -> TIMEOUT| clone_newflags | | PASS -> TIMEOUT | pid_ns_shutdown-no-syscallbuf | | TIMEOUT -> PASS | fstatat-no-syscallbuf | | TIMEOUT -> PASS | futex_exit_race | | TIMEOUT -> PASS | futex_exit_race-no-syscallbuf | | TIMEOUT -> PASS | futex_exit_race_sigsegv | | TIMEOUT -> PASS | futex_exit_race_sigsegv-no-syscallbuf| > >>> - MTE: I didn't see MTE in the cover letter's test list, and it seems >>> relevant since patch 13 puts _TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT into >>> ARCH_EXIT_TO_USER_MODE_WORK, so an async tag check fault lands >>> on the reworked exit path. The MTE selftests showed no differences, >>> but a third of them don't actually run for me under QEMU, so they'd >>> be worth running on your hardware. (Testing MTE under QEMU saw >> >> Turns out our arm64 machines don't support MTE; I was testing it on QEMU. > > Ah, dang. I wonder if we can find anyone with MTE hardware to test this. > Any volunteers? :) > > -Kees > -- Best regards, Jinjie