linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/37] 5.15.73-rc1 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: <09eca44e-4d91-a060-d48c-d0aa41ac5045@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:49:10 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/37] 5.15.73-rc1 review

On 10/10/22 00:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.73 release.
> There are 37 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, 12 Oct 2022 07:03:19 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Building h8300:allnoconfig ... failed
--------------
Error log:
In file included from include/linux/fs.h:6,
                  from include/linux/huge_mm.h:8,
                  from include/linux/mm.h:727,
                  from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7,
                  from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
                  from arch/h8300/kernel/asm-offsets.c:15:
include/linux/wait_bit.h: In function 'wait_on_bit':
include/linux/wait_bit.h:74:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'test_bit_acquire'; did you mean 'test_bit_le'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
    74 |         if (!test_bit_acquire(bit, word))
       |              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       |              test_bit_le

This affects h8300 builds in all branches all the way back to v4.9.y.
It also affects release candidates for various other architectures
in v4.9.y..v5.10.y. In v4.9.y.queue, for example, I see 56 build
failures out of 164 builds; most if not all of those can be attributed
to problems with test_bit_acquire() - either due to a missing or due
to a bad backport.

I can only hope that fix for the the problem that required the
test_bit_acquire() backport is worth the trouble it causes.

Guenter