linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-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, 25 Aug 2023 10:10:46 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.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,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
        Sherry Yang <sherry.yang@...cle.com>,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> + linux-nfs and more
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> 
> Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> the functionality and found that it was a failure.
> 
> This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
> 
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>

Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
previous ones somehow?

> Test log:
> --------
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
> 
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> expected 0102700
> 
> 
> ## Build
> * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> * test details:
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> 
> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
>   - chown02
>   - fchown02
> 
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
>   - chown02
>   - fchown02
> 
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
>   - chown02
>   - fchown02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
> 
> I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
> 
> the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.

What "above commit"?

And what commit should be backported?

confused,

greg k-h