linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Check unwind_error() in arch_stack

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:20:24 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc:     stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Check unwind_error() in arch_stack_walk()

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:50:07AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:25 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:35:34PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 14:29 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > > We can see the following messages with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y on
> > > > LoongArch:
> > > >
> > > >   BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> > > >   turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > > >
> > > > This is because stack_trace_save() returns a big value after call
> > > > arch_stack_walk(), here is the call trace:
> > > >
> > > >   save_trace()
> > > >     stack_trace_save()
> > > >       arch_stack_walk()
> > > >         stack_trace_consume_entry()
> > > >
> > > > arch_stack_walk() should return immediately if unwind_next_frame()
> > > > failed, no need to do the useless loops to increase the value of
> > > > c->len in stack_trace_consume_entry(), then we can fix the above
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8a44ad71-68d2-4926-892f-72bfc7a67e2a@roeck-us.net/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
> > >
> > > The fix makes sense, but I'm asking the same question again (sorry if
> > > it's noisy): should we Cc stable@...r.kernel.org and/or make a PR for
> > > 6.3?
> > >
> > > To me a bug fixes should be backported into all stable branches affected
> > > by the bug, unless there is some serious difficulty.  As 6.3 release
> > > will work on launched 3A5000 boards out-of-box, people may want to stop
> > > staying on the leading edge and use a LTS/stable release series. We
> > > can't just say (or behave like) "we don't backport, please use latest
> > > mainline" IMO :).
> >
> > It is a bug fix, isn't it ? It should be backported to v6.1+. Otherwise,
> > if your policy is to not backport bug fixes, I might as well stop testing
> > loongarch on all but the most recent kernel branch. Let me know if this is
> > what you want. If so, I think you should let all other regression testers
> > know that they should only test loongarch on mainline and possibly on
> > linux-next.
> This is of course a bug fix, but should Tiezhu resend this patch? Or
> just replying to this message with CC stable@...r.kernel.org is
> enough?
> 

Normally the maintainer, before sending a pull request to Linus, would add
"Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" to the patch. Actually sending the patch to
the stable@ mailing list is only necessary if it was applied to the
upstream kernel without Cc: stable@ in the commit message.

Guenter