Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-4.6-testing test] 137064: regressions - FAIL"):
> Fundamentally I don't care overly much about this old tree, but
> I can't figure how you came to the "mostly new tests in XTF"
> conclusion. In fact ...Hmmm. I think you are right and I misread the report. > ... these are all XTF related ones, and leak-check failures imo aren't > liable to be related to "new" XTF tests. Otoh I think leak-check failures > are sufficiently "fine" to ignore, and hence aren't an argument against > a force push. IIRC the leak-check failures were due to the host crashing during the XTF tests. For example, http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/137847/test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1/info.html shows ssh: connect to host 172.16.144.37 port 22: No route to host Looking at the logs, this seems to be due to the XSA-279 test. Jun 17 01:16:00.974495 (d96) XSA-279 PoC ... Jun 17 01:16:01.202545 (XEN) Xen call trace: Jun 17 01:16:01.202545 (XEN) [<ffff82d08016a0c6>] flush_area_local+0x6f/0x288 Jun 17 01:16:01.214533 (XEN) [<ffff82d08018cb14>] flush_area_mask+0x9e/0x135 Jun 17 01:16:01.214533 (XEN) [<ffff82d0801866a1>] __do_update_va_mapping+0x518/0x727 Jun 17 01:16:01.226723 (XEN) [<ffff82d0801868df>] do_update_va_mapping+0x2f/0x62 Jun 17 01:16:01.226805 (XEN) [<ffff82d080247005>] lstar_enter+0x1a5/0x1ff ... Jun 17 01:16:01.238545 (XEN) Panic on CPU 3: Jun 17 01:16:01.238545 (XEN) GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT Jun 17 01:16:01.250536 (XEN) [error_code=0000] > I'm far more worried about all these guest install failures - it can't > really help to ignore them by way of doing a force push. Without > having looked, quite likely they're (almost) all the same hvmloader > issue as diagnosed on the 4.7 branch. If so, waiting for the tests > to actually succeed would seem better to me. I think you are right about those. > To give osstest some relief, would it be possible to temporarily > disable testing of the older trees (which we know won't succeed)? > They could be incrementally re-enabled from oldest onwards once > we know the -prev build issues have been addressed in the > respective N-1 tree. This is a good idea and I should have done it earlier. I have now disabled 4.8 and 4.9 inclusive. I have left 4.7 running (for which AIUI you have pushed a proposed fix) and also 4.6 (because I think surely we want to try to make, and test, a fix for the XSA-279 crash, shown above). Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
