Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 102519: regressions - FAIL

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/11/2016 09:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.11.16 at 05:11, <osstest-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> flight 102519 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102519/ 
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3   20 xtf/test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs. 
>> 101938
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3 29 xtf/test-hvm32pae-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs. 
>> 101938
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3   40 xtf/test-hvm64-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs. 
>> 101938
> Namely them representing a pattern, these concern me: Did we
> screw up the backport for one of the XSAs? Otoh they succeeded
> on 4.5. Or is this because the 4.6 ones ran on and AMD box,
> while the 4.5 ones (and perhaps the earlier successful 4.6 flight
> then too) made it onto an Intel system?

http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102519/test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3/nocera0---var-log-xen-console-guest-test-hvm32pae-invlpg~shadow.log

--- Xen Test Framework ---
Environment: HVM 32bit (PAE 3 levels)
Invlpg tests
Testing 'invlpg (0x1000)' with segment bases
  Test: No segment
    TLB refill of 0x1000
  Test: %fs (base 0x0)
    TLB refill of 0x1000
  Test: %fs (base 0x0, limit 0x1)
    Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
    Fail: No TLB refill at all
  Test: %fs (base 0x1000)
    TLB refill of 0x2000
  Test: %fs (base 0x1000, limit 0x1001)
    TLB refill of 0x2000
Testing 'invlpg' in normally-faulting conditions
  Test: Mapped address
  Test: Unmapped address
  Test: NULL segment override
    Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
  Test: Past segment limit
    Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
  Test: Before expand-down segment limit
    Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
Test result: FAILURE

The invlpg logic isn't (or is no longer) squashing segmentation faults.

I can't recall whether you backported the change that far, but it looks
as if the test might accidentally been relying on XSA-191 to function on
older versions of Xen.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel