linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/123] 5.15.82-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: <792a6fba-aa15-2e2a-7527-99ab1116a01d@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 07:11:39 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...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, rwarsow@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/123] 5.15.82-rc2 review

On 12/6/22 04:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.82 release.
> There are 123 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 Thu, 08 Dec 2022 12:40:31 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c: In function 'handle_IPI':
arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c:195:44: error: 'cpu' undeclared (first use in this function)
   195 |                         ipi_cpu_crash_stop(cpu, get_irq_regs());
       |                                            ^~~
arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c:195:44: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c:217:22: error: 'old_regs' undeclared (first use in this function)
   217 |         set_irq_regs(old_regs);
       |                      ^~~~~~~~

This is with v5.15.81-124-g9269e46bc838.

The backport of commit 9b932aadfc47d seems wrong. The original version introduces
the cpu variable in handle_IPI(). The backport doesn't, and removes old_regs
instead.

Backport:

  void handle_IPI(struct pt_regs *regs)
  {
-       struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs);
         unsigned long *pending_ipis = &ipi_data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
         unsigned long *stats = ipi_data[smp_processor_id()].stats;

Original:

void handle_IPI(struct pt_regs *regs)
  {
-       unsigned long *pending_ipis = &ipi_data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
-       unsigned long *stats = ipi_data[smp_processor_id()].stats;
+       unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+       unsigned long *pending_ipis = &ipi_data[cpu].bits;
+       unsigned long *stats = ipi_data[cpu].stats;

Upstream includes commit 7ecbc648102f which removes the old_regs variable.
That doesn't mean it can be removed in the backport.

Guenter