linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 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: <32a6c609-642c-71cf-0a84-d5e8ccd104b1@collabora.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 11:38:36 +0000
From:   Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Suram Suram <suram@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review

On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release.
> There are 661 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 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.20-rc2.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made
this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated.

First there was one build regression with the arm
realview_defconfig:

kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func);
  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
  IRQMASK_I_BIT
kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer

Full log:

  https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log

There were also a few new build warnings.  Here's a comparison of
the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at
least one warning, and with an error between current stable and
stable-rc:

              pass  warn  error
v5.10.19      188      6      0  
v5.10.20-rc2  180     15      1

Full details for these 2 revisions respectively:

  https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/
  https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/

Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression
detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here:

  https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/

I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2
and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not
really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem.
Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results
about which commit caused it.  We should chase this up, I've
already asked if they're OK to enable bisection.  Then we may
bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the
root cause...

Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20
release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be
ignored, but that's your call.  So it seems a bit early for
KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested
but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether
Tested-by implicitly means "works for me".  What do you think?

Best wishes,
Guillaume