linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/134] 5.4.231-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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:49:49 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, 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 5.4 000/134] 5.4.231-rc1 review

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/3/23 11:07, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:54:21AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:18:26AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 07:56:19AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.231 release.
> > > > > > > There are 134 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 Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000.
> > > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Building ia64:defconfig ... failed
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > Error log:
> > > > > > <stdin>:1511:2: warning: #warning syscall clone3 not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > > > > > arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c: In function 'mca_handler_bh':
> > > > > > arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c:179:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'make_task_dead'
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Caused by "exit: Add and use make_task_dead.". Did that really have to be backported ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yup, it does!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Eric, any help with this?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Adding "#include <linux/sched/task.h>" to the affected file would probably
> > > > be the easy fix. I did a quick check, and it works.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the same problem is seen in v4.14.y and v4.19.y. Later
> > > > kernels don't have the problem.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This problem arises because <linux/mm.h> transitively includes
> > > <linux/sched/task.h> in 5.10 and later, but not in 5.4 and earlier.
> > > 
> > > Greg, any preference for how to handle this situation?
> > > 
> > > Just add '#include <linux/sched/task.h>' to the affected .c file (and hope there
> > > are no more affected .c files in the other arch directories) and call it a day?
> > > 
> > > Or should we backport the transitive inclusion (i.e., the #include added by
> > > commit 80fbaf1c3f29)?  Or move the declaration of make_task_dead() into
> > > <linux/kernel.h> so that it's next to do_exit()?
> > 
> > One question: do *all* the arches actually get built as part of the testing for
> > each stable release?  If so, we can just add the #include to the .c files that
> > need it.  If not, then it would be safer to take one of the other approaches.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I do build all architectures for each stable release.
> 
> FWIW, I only noticed that one build failure due to this problem.

Okay, great.  In that case, Greg or Sasha, can you fold the needed #include into
arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c in exit-add-and-use-make_task_dead.patch on 4.14,
4.19, and 5.4?  Or should I just send the whole series again for each?

- Eric