Re: Regressed XSA-286, was [xen-unstable test] 161917: regressions - FAIL

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 13.05.2021 22:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/05/2021 04:56, osstest service owner wrote:
>> flight 161917 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/161917/
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-arm64-arm64-examine      8 reboot                   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 161898
>>  test-arm64-arm64-xl-thunderx  8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 161898
>>  test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit1   8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 161898
>>  test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit2   8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 161898
>>  test-arm64-arm64-xl           8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 161898
> 
> I reported these on IRC, and Julien/Stefano have already committed a fix.
> 
>> Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3 92 xtf/test-pv32pae-xsa-286 fail in 161909 pass in 
>> 161917
> 
> While noticing the ARM issue above, I also spotted this one by chance. 
> There are two issues.
> 
> First, I have reverted bed7e6cad30 and edcfce55917.  The XTF test is
> correct, and they really do reintroduce XSA-286.  It is a miracle of
> timing that we don't need an XSA/CVE against Xen 4.15.

As expressed at the time already, I view this reverting you did, without
there being any emergency and without you having gathered any acks or
allowed for objections, as overstepping your competencies. I did post a
patch to the XTF test, which I believe is wrong, without having had any
feedback there either. Unless I hear back by the end of this week with
substantial arguments of why I am wrong (which would need to also cover
the fact that an issue was found with 32-bit PAE only, in turn supporting
my view on the overall state), I intend to revert your revert early next
week.

Jan