linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/139] 5.10.168-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: <Y+urRgBmITDFjI8o@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:39:50 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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,
        sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/139] 5.10.168-rc1 review

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 03:25:52PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:09:38AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:53:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:20:46AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:50:24AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/13/23 06:49, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.168 release.
> > > > > > > There are 139 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, 15 Feb 2023 14:46:51 +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-5.10.168-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-5.10.y
> > > > > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a regression coming from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which causes the following to happen for MTD devices:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [    6.031640] kobject_add_internal failed for mtd0 with -EEXIST, don't try
> > > > > > to register things with the same name in the same directory.
> > > > > > [    7.846965] spi-nor: probe of spi0.0 failed with error -17
> > > > > >
> > > > > > attached is a full log with the call trace. This does not happen with
> > > > > > v6.2-rc8 where the MTD partitions are successfully registered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you use `git bisect` to find the offending commit?
> > > >
> > > > The reason for this is because, due to how my patch series was
> > > > backported, you have ended up with nvmem_register() initialising
> > > > its embedded device, and then calling device_add() on it _twice_.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, the backport of:
> > > >
> > > > 	"nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race"
> > > >
> > > > is broken, because the original patch _moved_ the device_add() and
> > > > that has not been carried forward to whatever got applied to stable
> > > > trees.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the 5.15-stable version of this patch was correct.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe whoever tried to fixup the failure needs to try again?
> > > 
> > > I've dropped the backport series from both 5.15 and 5.10.
> > 
> > So you've dropped what looks to be a perfectly good backport in 5.15,
> > and all of the 5.10 despite it just being the last patch which is the
> > problem. Sounds like a total over-reaction to me.
> 
> The context is that we want to get the releases out today, and neither
> of us will have time to verify that we did the right thing in 5.15 in
> the next few hours.
> 
> I'm just defering it to the next release cycle which is probably a few
> days away, not completely throwing it away.... why is it such a big
> deal?

Maybe because you didn't explain that it was being dropped
_temporarily_?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!