Skip to content

Conversation

@roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Jul 15, 2025

Started seeing the below failure in test_population_latency:

thread 'main' panicked at .../uffd/fault_all_handler.rs:41:18: uffd_msg not ready
note: run with RUST_BACKTRACE=1 environment variable to display a backtrace

I am not entierly sure how this can happen, because the read from the uffd is supposed to be blocking, but maybe it's a weird interaction with the fault-all behavior (e.g. there was a uffd event queues, but because we faulted everything it got cancelled again?), so let's just try going back to read(2) if we dont read anything.

Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

Started seeing the below failure in test_population_latency:

thread 'main' panicked at .../uffd/fault_all_handler.rs:41:18:
uffd_msg not ready
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a
backtrace

I am not entierly sure how this can happen, because the read from the
uffd is supposed to be blocking, but maybe it's a weird interaction
with the fault-all behavior (e.g. there was a uffd event queues, but
because we faulted everything it got cancelled again?), so let's just
try going back to read(2) if we dont read anything.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.81%. Comparing base (464b001) to head (5eb05cf).
Report is 1 commits behind head on feature/secret-hiding.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                   @@
##           feature/secret-hiding    #5307   +/-   ##
======================================================
  Coverage                  81.81%   81.81%           
======================================================
  Files                        250      250           
  Lines                      27635    27635           
======================================================
  Hits                       22609    22609           
  Misses                      5026     5026           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 81.99% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 81.99% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 81.15% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 77.96% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 81.98% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 81.14% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 77.96% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 81.94% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 81.95% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 77.96% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 77.96% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 82.04% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 82.03% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 81.19% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 77.96% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 82.03% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 81.19% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7g.metal 77.96% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 82.04% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 82.04% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 77.96% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 77.96% <ø> (ø)
6.16-c5n.metal 82.07% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m5n.metal 82.07% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m6a.metal 81.24% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m6g.metal 78.00% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m6i.metal 82.07% <ø> (+0.02%) ⬆️
6.16-m7a.metal-48xl 81.22% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m7g.metal 77.99% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m7i.metal-24xl 82.08% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m7i.metal-48xl 82.08% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m8g.metal-24xl 77.99% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.16-m8g.metal-48xl 78.00% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@roypat roypat enabled auto-merge (rebase) July 15, 2025 12:56
@roypat roypat requested a review from zulinx86 July 15, 2025 13:26
@roypat roypat merged commit fc1f6aa into firecracker-microvm:feature/secret-hiding Jul 15, 2025
6 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants