linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/74] 4.14.10-stable review

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]

Message-ID: <20171231101508.GB21846@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:15:08 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Milosz Wasilewski <milosz.wasilewski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/74] 4.14.10-stable review

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:53:39PM +0000, Milosz Wasilewski wrote:
> On 29 December 2017 at 10:35, Milosz Wasilewski
> <milosz.wasilewski@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On 29 December 2017 at 09:18, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:29:04AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >>> On 27 December 2017 at 22:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.10 release.
> >>> > There are 74 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >>> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >>> > let me know.
> >>> >
> >>> > Responses should be made by Fri Dec 29 16:45:52 UTC 2017.
> >>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>> >
> >>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >>> >         kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.10-rc1.gz
> >>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y
> >>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > greg k-h
> >>>
> >>> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> >>> No regressions on arm64 and arm.
> >>> x86_64 build results will be shared soon in this email thread.
> >>
> >> I'm guessing x86 is busted for you?  Is that a stable patch issue, or an
> >> infrastructure issue?
> >>
> >
> > It was just a timing issue. Builders were busy so the x86 build got
> > delayed. The test results are available now. There is one failed
> > kselftest (ldt_gdt_64) that didn't fail before but needs to be
> > re-tested to confirm that this isn't an intermittent problem.
> >
> 
> I re-tested ldt_gdt_64 again locally and in testing LAB. The test
> failed again so I think this is a regression. I did the bisection
> which resulted in
> 
> 2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed is the first bad commit
> commit 2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed
> Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Date:   Thu Dec 14 12:27:31 2017 +0100
> 
>     x86/ldt: Prevent LDT inheritance on exec
> 
>     commit a4828f81037f491b2cc986595e3a969a6eeb2fb5 upstream.
> 
> Reverting this commit makes he ldt_gdt_64 pass again. However it's
> worth to mention that the test uses a pre-build version of kselftest
> from 4.14 (sources here:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.14.tar.xz). The
> offending commit also changed tools/testing/selftests/x86/ldt_gdt.c. I
> re-tested original build using this version of kselftests and the
> ldt_gdt_64 passes (as expected). This makes me thinking whether using
> the 'old' version of kselftests is a good idea.

You should use the version with the fix, for the obvious reason as
documented in the selftest change :)

thanks,

greg k-h