Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] mm: implement sticky VMA flags

[Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 04:11:48PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > It is useful to be able to designate that certain flags are 'sticky', that
> > is, if two VMAs are merged one with a flag of this nature and one without,
> > the merged VMA sets this flag.
> 
> I'm seeing regressions on multiple arm64 platforms in at least the LTP
> clone302 and madvise10 selftests, both of which have bisected to one of
> the fixups to this patch.  Especially given the other tests that also
> bisected to the same place I've not investigated further.  There's a
> number of other LTP tests that started failing today including relevant
> seeming ones munlockall01, mprotect04, madvise10, mprotect03 and
> futex_cmp_requeue01 but I don't have bisects to confirm they're the same
> thing.
>

Thanks for the reports!
 
> clone302:
> 
> tst_buffers.c:57: TINFO: Test is using guarded buffers
> tst_tmpdir.c:316: TINFO: Using /tmp/LTP_clorMwMMw as tmpdir (nfs filesystem)
> tst_test.c:1953: TINFO: LTP version: 20250530
> tst_test.c:1956: TINFO: Tested kernel: 6.18.0-rc6-next-20251119 #1 SMP PREEMPT @1763523415 aarch64

next-20251119 still has the v3 version of the patchset, which is Known Bad(tm)
after a couple of buggy fixups. v4 should hopefully work properly.

-- 
Pedro