Bug#1100909: fix selftest tpdir2 Segmentation fault

[Kang Wenlin <wenlin.kang@windriver.com>]

Hi Salvatore

On 3/22/2025 02:00, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:

> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:05:41AM +0800, Kang Wenlin wrote:
> > On 3/20/2025 21:38, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> > > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > >
> > > Control: severity -1 normal
> > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 07:04:14PM +0800, Wenlin Kang wrote:
> > > > Package: linux
> > > > Version: 6.1.129-1
> > > > Severity: critical
> > > >
> > > > The selftest tpidr2 fails with a segfault(Segmentation fault) when i run it.
> > > >
> > > > root@localhost:~# uname -rvm
> > > > 6.1.0-32-arm64 #1 SMP Debian 6.1.129-1 (2025-03-06) aarch64
> > > > root@localhost:~#
> > > > root@localhost:~# cd linux-kenel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi && make
> > > > root@localhost:~/linux-kernel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi# ./tpidr2
> > > > Segmentation fault
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've backported the fix patches from upstream for debian-linux(branch:
> > > > debian/6.1/bookworm)
> > > > and attached it, it works as:
> > > >
> > > > root@localhost:~/linux-kernel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi# ./tpidr2
> > > > TAP version 13
> > > > 1..5
> > > > ok 0 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported
> > > > ok 1 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported
> > > > ok 2 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported
> > > > ok 3 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported
> > > > ok 4 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported
> > > >           
> > > I'm sorry but we are not going to apply such a patch series. Make sure
> > > they get backported upstream to the 6.1.y branch and let us know again
> > > when this has happened. Note that the upstream commit of the first
> > > patch is as well not correct, it would be
> > > dc64cc12bcd14219afb91b55d23192c3eb45aa43 ? Was this a typo?
> > >         
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification. I understand the requirement to backport
> > to the upstream 6.1.y branch. In addition, my apologies for the incorrect
> > commit ID on the first patch, thank you for correcting me. I will backport
> > the patches with the correct commit and inform you when it is complete.
> >       
> No problem about the wrong commit id, was just something I spotted
> while checking what commits we are speaking about and did it not found
> in upstream.
>
> Make sure that it is asked to be backported to each "upper" stable
> version as well where commits are missing, otherwise upstream will
> likely reject your backport request. So if there are commits missing
> in 6.6.y for instance, they need to flow in there as well.
>

Thanks for the reminder. I’ve already sent the patches with the correct
commit IDs to the upstream 6.1.y and 6.6.y. However, the maintainer
considered the patch series to be a new feature rather than a regression
fix, as it’s not a real-world issue reported by users(it was found
during internal testing)—so it was dropped.

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250402082656.4177277-1-wenlin.kang@windriver.com/T/#t

> Regards,
> Salvatore
>     
-- 
--
Thanks
Wenlin Kang